9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Redetermination of declared assessable value of goods, duty demand under Section 28 of Customs Act, penalty under Section 114A of Customs Act.
Redetermination of Assessable Value: The order-in-original redetermined the assessable value of various goods based on PLATT's report and letters exchanged between foreign supplier agents, leading to duty demand and penalty imposition under relevant sections. Appellant's Arguments: The appellant challenged the valuation basis citing Rule 10A of Customs Valuation Rules, lack of contemporaneous imports evidence, and erroneous application of valuation rules. They argued against invoking Rule 10A retrospectively and criticized the reliance on PLATT's report and quotations as not representing actual transaction values. Department's Defense: The Department defended the invocation of Rule 10A due to missing manufacturer's invoices, supported by case laws. They argued for the reliability of PLATT's report, discounts consideration, and validity of correspondences exchanged between reputable companies. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal found Rule 10A inapplicable retrospectively, rejected PLATT's report as not reflecting actual transactions, and criticized the valuation based on quotations. They emphasized the need for proof of fraud or reliance on higher-priced contemporaneous invoices to discard declared values, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and penalties. Conclusion: The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting errors in valuation methodology and lack of concrete evidence to support the redetermined assessable values. Penalties were deemed unjustified, leading to the appeal's allowance with consequential relief.
|
