9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
The issues involved in this case are the valuation of imported goods and the timeliness of a show-cause notice served to the importer. Valuation of Imported Goods: The appeal challenged the valuation of imports of sets consisting of Plastic Extruded Casing, Die cast casing, and Pressed Metal Parts of VCR from Japan through a Singapore supplier. The appellants resisted a notice to show cause why valuation should not be based on higher prices of similar goods imported by others. The Assistant Collector relied on prices of other imports to value the goods imported by the appellants. The appellants claimed the higher prices paid by them and other importers were due to quantity discounts, but failed to substantiate their claim with evidence. The Tribunal found that the appellants and other importers had paid much more than the declared prices for the subject imports, leading to the rejection of the transaction value and loading of the value. Timeliness of Show-Cause Notice: The show-cause notice issued under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, was challenged as being barred by time. The notice was served on the Custom House Agent (CHA) after the expiry of the six-month period from the date of duty payment. The Tribunal held that the requirement in Section 28(1)(b) is to serve the notice within the specified period, not just to issue it within that time frame. Citing previous cases, the Tribunal concluded that the notice served on the CHA after goods clearance cannot be considered valid, thus rendering the notice time-barred. Separate Judgement: In the final decision, the impugned order was set aside regarding the differential duty demanded on goods covered by the invoice dated 30-7-1988 due to the time-barred show-cause notice. The appeal was allowed in part, confirming the order in other respects.
|
