9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Along with the Bill of Entry, Bill of Lading, Packing List, etc., were filed. The Customs Authorities were not prepared to accept the price declared. They started investigation. They loaded the value to Rs. 13,28,040.00 as against the declared value of Rs. 4,34,643.00. In this view, the duty liability was enhanced by Rs. 5,76,139.00. They came to the conclusion that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 10(3) of the Valuation Rules. In lieu of confiscation, redemption fine of Rs. 30,000.00 was imposed. The proprietor of the firm, Shri Brijmohan Bhatia, was found liable to penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act and was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 as penalty. This orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Bill of Entry and invoice issued by G Vs International happened to be rejected by the adjudicating authority basing on the value of the so-called similar goods imported by another importer. The goods imported by the appellant herein are described as "CFL-Energy Saver Lamps". The value of the lamps compared with that of contemporaneous import had nothing in common with the actual goods imported. The lamps imported by the appellant were, according to the appellant, entirely different from those compared. The various differences highlighted by the importer are following :- (ii) That goods imported by appellant does not have inbuilt fuse protect. (iii) That goods imported by appellant does not have voltage stabilizer. (iv) That the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue is clear from the documents, authority can ignore it and fall back on contemporary imports of identical goods only if there is sufficient reason to doubt the correctness of the transaction value and also only when the contemporary import was of identical goods. The adjudicating authority did not give any cogent reason for ignoring the transaction value. The contemporary goods relied on by him were not of identical goods even. In such a situation, we are clear in our mind that the authority was not justified in loading the value of the goods on the basis of the so-called contemporary imports. The burden is heavy on the Revenue to prove that the transaction value is not the correct value. The authority is not to find loopholes in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . They can be got examined by experts of the department. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority which is impugned in this appeal and remit the matter to that authority for de novo decision as expeditiously as possible. Since the goods have been lying in detention for nearly two years, we direct the adjudicating authority to pass fresh orders with notice to the importer within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case no order, as stated above, is passed within the said period of two months, the goods imported which are lying with the department should be released after levying duty on the transaction value, immediately on the expiry of the said period of two months. The release in s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
