9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the provisions of the Import Control Order, that the goods were under valued and proposed escalation to US $ 100 per M.T. The show cause notice did not give any grounds for this proposed revaluation but merely cited Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules. The Addl. Collector dealt with the aspect of valuation in the following manner :- The declared price of DHS 150 PMT (Rs. 1425 PMT C F) claimed to be the transaction value and it is argued by the importer that the same should be accepted as per Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. I find that the freight itself for such goods was about Rs. 1,500/- PMT and the C F (Cost Freight) cannot be less than the freight amount. The declared value, therefore, cannot be taken as true transactio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellants have declared the value of Rs. 1,425/- PMT CIF, whereas, the adjudicating authority has loaded the value to US $ 100 p.m.t. However, I find that the value adopted by the authority is for the imports made in the month of June, 1994, whereas, the present import is in the month of July, 1996, therefore, this cannot be considered as contemporaneous import for loading the value in the present case. Since the lower authority has not adduced any other evidence of contemporaneous import to load the value, the value declared by the appellants which is the actual value of the goods paid or payable in the course of international trade is the transaction value in terms of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 4 of the Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts at all of tyres. It is difficult to place reliance on this belief of the Addl. Commissioner. He relied heavily upon the imports by M/s. Modern Rubber Industries where the value declared was US $100 PMT. He himself in the same paragraphs admitted that it was not a contemporaneous import and therefore, the value could not be adopted but later on, under Rule 8, he applied the previously disregarded value. It is also significant to see that in the show cause notice (copy of which was not placed on record by the Commissioner but which was shown by the Counsel for the respondents), there is no reference about the importation by M/s. Modern Rubber Industries. This piece of evidence having been used behind the back of the importers lacks credibi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
