9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (1) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue in detail. In my opinion the lower authority has invoked Rule 6 of Valuation Rules, 1988 without properly ruling out Rule 4 of the same rules. According to Valuation Rules, 1988, Rule 6 would be relevant only when application of Rule 4 is ruled out. There is no material in Assistant Collector s order to show that Rule 4 is not invokable in the present case. The lower authority has not pointed out any valid ground which would disqualify the impugned goods from the purview of Rule 4 of Valuation Rules. The lower authority is reasoning that because of the apparent error in the Chartered Engineer s Certificate while indicating the value of goods at the time of manufacturing, the invoice value cannot be taken as `Transaction Value has no for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal allowed. 3. The department in their appeal grounds has mentioned as follows :- 4. The Rule 4 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods), Rules, 1988 reads as under : 4. Transation Value : (1) The transaction value of imported goods shall be the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India, adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of these rules. (2) The transaction value of imported goods under sub-rule (1) above shall be accepted; provided that - (a) (i) (ii) (iii) (b) the sale or price is not subject to some condition or consideraion for which a value cannot be determined in respect of the goods being valued. The machine under reference was a 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iven as US $ 98,000/- but in the subject case, the value of the Press during 1984 has been declared as US $ 85,000/-. The price of press during 1984 logically should be more than the price which was ruling in 1983. From the above, it could be seen that the price is subject to some condition (or) consideration viz; the second hand nature which itself influenced the pricing of the subject goods, for which the value cannot be determined. Therefore, the transaction value under Rule 4 is ruled out. No identical goods imports were noticed. Hence Rule 5 cannot be applied. The goods imported were assessed under Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules. In this case, the valuation done was akin to the valuation under Rule 8 by using reasonable means consis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the intensity of use is also an important criterion for arriving at the machine value. The ld. SDR pointed out that without these particulars available before the Collector (Appeals), he could not have allowed the appeal on assumption that the imported goods are used extensively more than the earlier models which were imported. 5. The ld. Accountant of the respondents is present and he reiterated the written arguments. 6. We have considerd the submissions. We find from the original authority s order that he has passed his order on the grond that earlier models of the machine were imported for US $ 55,000/-. These models are 1982 and 1983 but the present machine is of the make 1984. The declared value is US $ 35,000/-. This prima facie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
