9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 174 - AT - CustomsValuation - enhancement of value - Stainless Steel Scraps Sheets - use of product as such - Comparison of the circle of stainless steel with CR coil - Held that - No evidences whatsoever is on the record to substantiate the claim that stainless steel of 316L grade comes of premium of US 300PMT as compared to 304L grade variety. Without any evidence such assertions is unsubstantiated and liable to be rejected. Stainless Steel circle imported by the appellant are cut pieces of approx. half kg each. The LME price of CR coils of stainless steel has been taken for comparison. CR Coils are prime product of continuous length. Comparison of the circle of stainless steel to prime product namely CR Coil is incorrect and cannot be allowed - appeal allowed - enhancement of value not justified - decided against appellant.
Issues:
1. Enhancement of value of 'Stainless Steel Scraps Sheets'. 2. Change of title from Teekay Metaflex Pvt Ltd to M/s. Teekay Flowflex Private Limited. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the enhancement of the value of imported 'Stainless Steel Scraps Sheets'. The appellant imported Stainless Steel Scraps, out of which 70% was in the form of SS circles. The contention was that these circles were usable as such and should not be considered scrap. The material was identified as 316L grade, with a declared value of US$885/- PMT CIF. It was argued that the scrap of 316L grade was more expensive than that of 305 grade. The value of 30% of the consignment was enhanced to US$1000/- PMT CIF, and the value of the remaining 70% was enhanced to US$2100 PMT. However, the Tribunal found these arguments unsubstantiated. It was held that there was no evidence to support the claim that 316L grade commands a premium over 304 grade. Additionally, comparing the value of SS circles to the LME price of CR Coils of stainless steel grade 304L was deemed incorrect. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. 2. The appellant also filed a Misc. Application for a change of title from Teekay Metaflex Pvt Ltd to M/s. Teekay Flowflex Private Limited. The appellant submitted a certificate of Incorporation reflecting the name change, duly signed by the Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, Mumbai. The Tribunal allowed the Misc. Application considering the request made by the appellant.
|
