9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Valuation of imported Korean Fabrics, Misdeclaration of value, Comparison with similar goods, Commissioner's order, Grounds for appeal by Revenue, Justification for interference, Confiscation of goods, Penalty for misdeclaration.
Valuation of imported Korean Fabrics: The appeal related to the valuation of 10,000 meters of Korean Fabrics imported by a company in December 1991. The price declared by the importer was contested by the Revenue based on the comparison with purported contemporaneous import of similar goods at Chennai. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner for reconsideration. The Commissioner refixed the value at US $1 per meter. The Revenue appealed against this order, arguing that the value should have been fixed closer to US $2.4 per meter. Misdeclaration of value: The show cause notice and the initial adjudication order proceeded with the valuation of the goods assuming they were velvet cloth. However, it was later found that the imported goods were knitted cut pile fabrics with polyester and Lycra, not tyre cord fabrics as initially assumed. The Commissioner considered various factors such as brand name, quality, and supplier details in determining the value to be US $1 per meter, higher than the importer's declared value of US $0.70 per meter. Comparison with similar goods: The Tribunal noted that the comparison made by the Revenue was not accurate as the goods under import were not similar to the consignment used for comparison. The records revealed that the show cause notice was issued based on a mistaken premise, and the comparison with tyre cord fabrics was incorrect. Commissioner's order and Revenue's appeal: The Revenue contended that the Commissioner's order was incorrect as it did not uphold the charge of misdeclaration and should have fixed the value closer to US $2.4 per meter. However, after perusing the records and hearing the arguments, the Tribunal found no justification for interfering with the Commissioner's order. The mere enhancement of the assessable value was not sufficient grounds for confiscation of the goods or imposition of a penalty for misdeclaration. Confiscation of goods and Penalty for misdeclaration: The Tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the Revenue's appeal, and it was dismissed. The judgment emphasized that a mere enhancement of the assessable value did not warrant confiscation of goods or the imposition of a penalty for misdeclaration.
|
