9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Determination of assessable value of imported high density polyethylene; Misdeclaration of value; Confiscation of goods; Penalty imposition.
In this case, the main issue for consideration was the determination of the assessable value of 7200 metric tonnes of high density polyethylene imported by the appellant in two lots. The Custom House valued the goods at US $ 710 per tonne, while the importer claimed the value to be US $ 575 per tonne CIF. The dispute arose from the difference in valuation based on the Platt bulletin and a previous import by another corporation. The Commissioner, adjudicating on the matter, rejected the importer's contention, emphasizing discrepancies in the contract terms and non-adherence to payment conditions, leading to an increase in the assessed value, confiscation of goods, and imposition of a penalty. Regarding the importer's argument that the supply was in line with the contract entered into, evidence was presented to support this claim. The appellant's advocate highlighted shipments made in accordance with the contract, including clearances at declared values for previous consignments. The discrepancies pointed out by the Commissioner were challenged, emphasizing the consistency in pricing and transactions with the supplier. The departmental representative reiterated the Commissioner's reasons for disputing the importation's conformity with the contract terms. The details of the contract entered into on 10-6-1994 were crucial in determining the validity of the importer's claims. The contract specified the quantity, price, and delivery schedule for the high density polyethylene. Correspondence between the parties, amendments to the letter of credit, and shipment details were examined to establish the fulfillment of contractual obligations. The discrepancies highlighted by the Commissioner were refuted based on the documentary evidence provided, indicating adherence to the agreed terms and pricing. Ultimately, the appellate tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments and evidence, leading to the allowance of the appeal. The tribunal concluded that the reasons provided by the Commissioner for rejecting the transaction value were unfounded, especially considering the clearance of previous consignments at declared values. The decision resulted in setting aside the impugned order, thereby overturning the increase in value, confiscation of goods, and penalty imposed on the appellant.
|
