2001 (8) TMI 647

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and further subscribed to a declaration that they did not receive/did not know any other document or information showing different price, value, quantity or description of the goods. The bill of entry was assessed to duty on 4-8-1992 accepting the value declared at 65% + 45% under Heading 1515.40 CTA together with the benefit of Notification 17/91-C.E. for levy of additional duty. 2. When the goods were about to be taken delivery, DRI was in receipt of intelligence that the subject import had been undervalued with intention to evade payment of duty. Hence, the clearance of the consignment was stopped and the duplicate bill of entry was collected from the CHA. Perusal of the documents revealed that the goods were shipped from Holland dire .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Chopra, the learned DR. 5. The data regarding the prices collected by the department relates to imports of the same item of South American origin during the contemporaneous period and the prices in respect of clearances of Formica India and Bakelite Hylam Limited, have been much higher than what has been declared by the importers in the present case. Therefore, we agree with the adjudicating authority that there is sufficient scope to doubt the correctness of the value declared as transaction value in terms of Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules. We therefore hold that the transaction value as declared under Rule 4 is not acceptable and proceed to determine the value of the goods in terms of the subsequent rules in their order of seque .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mported Goods) Rules, 1988 7. The submission of the learned Counsel that transaction value has to be accepted in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CC reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) is not tenable for the reason that while the Supreme Court has held that it is only when the transaction value is rejected then the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially through Rules 5 to 6 and in the present case the transaction value has been rejected as not genuine. 8. The duty demand on the basis of value of US $ 2125 PMT is to be requantified for which purpose we remand the case to the Commissioner. Since we have reduced the loading of the value we also reduce the redemption fine .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X