9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Rejection of declared values and seeking revised values. 2. Show cause notice for rejection of declared values, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties. 3. Commissioner's reliance on documents for rejecting transaction values. 4. Commissioner's determination of values based on various sources. 5. Appellant's arguments against Commissioner's decision. 6. Observations and decision of the Tribunal. Analysis: 1. The appellant imported a consignment of electronic components under the name of a company and sought clearance by filing a bill of entry. The declared values were not accepted, leading to the investigation of the correct values of the goods involved. 2. The appellant was issued a show cause notice to justify the declared values in the current and previous consignments, facing the possibility of confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties under relevant sections of the Customs Act. 3. The Commissioner relied on documents from various sources to reject the transaction values, including information from dealers in Singapore and India, export declarations from Hong Kong, and proforma invoices. 4. The Commissioner determined values based on different sources such as contemporaneous import prices, information from regular importers, and the application of Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules for certain items. 5. The appellant argued against the Commissioner's decision, pointing out that contemporaneous import prices were not considered, questioning the reliability of proforma invoices, and challenging the Commissioner's reliance on information without offering the sources for cross-examination. 6. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner failed to properly consider the appellant's defense, did not take into account contemporaneous import prices, and made determinations based on unreliable sources. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.
|
