9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entical product at Chennai Port, the Joint Commissioner of Customs, Kandla raised the assessable value to US $ 800 PMT and confirmed the differential demand of duty. On appeal against the above order, Commissioner (Appeals) observed that Rule 11 of the Customs Valuation Rules adopted by the Joint Commissioner without first exhausting Rule 5 to Rule 8 was contrary to the Valuation Rules. Stray import at a higher value cannot be considered as contemporaneous in nature; and the method adopted by the adjudicating authority for deriving the value of the impugned goods by taking the value of the final product anhydrous Piperazine and then arriving at the cost by backward calculation method was not justified. On these grounds and by relying upon t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on the basis of deductive method as provided under Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules in para 9.4 of the order. It is not understood as to which rule the Adjudicating Authority has applied for determining the value. I, therefore, will have to examine the applicability of the appropriate rule by examining Rules 5 to 8, proceeding sequentially. Rules 5 6 apply to cases where the values of identical/similar goods are available. Both identical and similar goods have been defined in Rule 2(c) and Rule 2(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules respectively. In both the definitions, the comparable goods should be produced in the same country as the goods for which the value is to be ascertained. In the instant case, it is admitted fact that the relied up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k by the ship . Both the calculations show that even when the price of impugned goods is taken as US $ 225 - 320 PMT, the cost of Anhydrous Piperazine would be in the range of US $ 2900 PMT. The aforesaid calculation has been certified by a registered Chartered Accountant and has to prefer compared to the assumption of the Adjudicating Authority. The conclusion of the Adjudicating Authority regarding assessable value of the impugned goods based on Rule 7(3) of the Valuation Rules, 1988 is also not sustainable . Commissioner (Appeals) has also observed that the appellant before him has produced sufficient correspondence between the manufacturer and the appellant to show that the price was negotiated after prolonged correspondence. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
