9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants and had recovered 465 Nos. of Metal Bezels, 560 Nos. of Straps, 400 Nos. of Metal Bezels and 400 nos. of Metal back covers. They were seized under Mahazar dated 22-11-2000 on the belief that these Watch Parts were also undervalued in respect of earlier imports declared in BE 196641 dated 28-10-2000. In order to prove the undervaluation, the Department has relied on the value ascertained from HMT, Bangalore. This has been challenged on the ground that HMT, Bangalore cannot value the goods, which are imported from Hong Kong, on their own basis, which is not the method to be adopted for enhancing the value in terms of the Customs Act, Rules and Valuation Rules. 2. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that the transaction value ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be imported goods as defined in Section 2 of the Customs Act, 1962 and consequently not liable to confiscation. It has been held that power to confiscate thereafter can be exercised only in cases where the order of clearance is revised and cancelled. 4. The learned Counsel also files a memo showing the particulars of the manufacturer s price, declared price and the HMT s price. He pointed out that the HMT had given the valuation on the basis of their own assessments without examination of the goods. He submitted that the imported goods were different and were without hands while the assessment of HMT was on the basis that the items were with hands . He submitted that the procedure adopted by the Commissioner to enhance the value is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... higher value. Moreover, the HMT has given the value on the basis of watch parts having hands while in the instant case, the watch parts does not have hands . Furthermore, Revenue cannot confiscate the goods which have already been cleared for home consumption as they ceased to be imported goods as defined in Section 2 of the Customs Act and as held by the Bombay High Court in the case of Bussa Overseas Properties P. Ltd. (cited supra). The same view has been expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Kishandas Sons; Sources India Impex P. Ltd. and in the case of Leela Dhar Maheswari v. CCE. The burden to prove to show the goods were undervalued is on the Revenue, which has not been discharged in the present case, and, therefore, the Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
