9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Determination of unit price of imported goods. 2. Burden of proof in cases of undervaluation. 3. Reliance on quotations for valuation. 4. Consideration of country of origin in valuation. 5. Application of Rule 8 of Valuation Rules. Analysis: 1. The appeal was against an order by the Collector fixing the unit price of imported Vanillin at US $ 11.25 per kg, leading to confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty. The Tribunal had remanded the case previously for reconsideration. 2. The Tribunal observed that the burden of proof lies on the importer in cases of alleged undervaluation, as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The appellant's failure to provide conclusive evidence led to the acceptance of the Department's valuation. 3. The appellant argued that the imported goods were of inferior quality, justifying a lower price. However, the Tribunal rejected the reliance on quotations as evidence for valuation, citing a Supreme Court decision. 4. The Department contended that similar goods were priced higher, supporting the Collector's valuation. The appellant's claim regarding the origin of goods was deemed to be within their special knowledge, requiring proof. 5. The adjudicating authority applied Rule 8 of Valuation Rules to determine the value of the goods, considering various factors and allowing a discount to arrive at a final price of US $ 11.25/kg. The excess value over the license amount led to confiscation, with a reduced penalty imposed. This detailed analysis covers the issues of determination of unit price, burden of proof, reliance on quotations, consideration of country of origin, and the application of Rule 8 in the valuation of imported goods as discussed in the legal judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras.
|
