9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Valuation of imported goods, maintainability of appeal due to incorrect importer
In this case, the issue revolves around the valuation of imported goods and the maintainability of the appeal due to the incorrect importer being named. The appeal challenges the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, which accepted the declared invoice price of US $0.41 per piece for Lucas CAV filters. The Department appeals on the grounds that the Commissioner erred in not considering the manufacturer's invoice showing a unit price of US $0.68 per piece. The Department argues that the invoice between the manufacturer and the importer was between related parties and, therefore, not the true transaction value. However, the appellant contends that the appeal is not maintainable as the importer is M/s. K. Venugopal & Co. and not M/s. Auto International, the named appellant. The appellant further argues that the department cannot question the valuation without making the importer a respondent. Reference is made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Bombay, emphasizing the importance of the correct valuation in international trade under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal carefully considers the arguments presented by both sides and finds merit in the appellant's contention that the department cannot challenge the valuation without naming the importer as a respondent. It is established that M/s. K. Venugopal & Co. is the actual importer, not M/s. Auto International. Additionally, there is no evidence on record to support the department's claim that the transaction value is incorrect. The Tribunal applies the ruling from the Supreme Court case of M/s. Eicher Tractors Ltd., highlighting the significance of the correct valuation in international trade. Consequently, the Tribunal dismisses the appeal filed by the department, as there is no substance in the grounds raised.
|
