9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all these appeals for common disposal. C/172 to 175/2005 3. The respondents imported used Computer Monitors and Power Cables. Revenue did not accept the value declared. The lower authority enhanced the value and held that the impugned goods are liable for confiscation for violation of EXIM Policy. The goods were released on payment of Redemption Fine. Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was imposed. The respondents approached the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) examined the issues involved. He held that there is no legal basis for enhancement of the value of the impugned goods. He relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CC - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.). He further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the declared value can be rejected and the value could be arrived at in accordance with the Customs Valuation Rules. In this particular case, the Tribunal upheld the value arrived at by the Commissioner under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules based on London Metal Exchange Prices and stated that any reasonable method of arriving at the value of consignment once Transaction Value is rejected cannot be called as arbitrary. (ii) Similarly, in these cases, there are certain mis-declarations of quantities, models and even goods. Hence, the rejection of Transaction Value appears to be proper. The observation of the Commissioner (A) that the NIDB data could not be adopted appears to be unrealistic in view of the large number of compute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explain on the said data relied on and there is no speaking order in respect of the said data. The Customs have not disproved the veracity of the invoice, the value of the goods was remitted to the suppliers through authorized Banking channels by TT. There is no evidence of any further amount paid or payable towards the goods. Hence, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly accepted the transaction value of the import. (ii) The Adjudicating Authority, at no point of time, asked the respondent to furnish any further information by way of documents or other evidences as may be required under Rule 10A(1) and also did not inform the respondent that it has any doubts on the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to the imported g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Value can be rejected only in terms of Rule 10A(1). As rightly pointed out by the respondents, the procedure outlined in Rule 10A(1) has not been followed by the Revenue. In these circumstances, there is no basis for enhancement of Transaction Value. As regards mis-declaration of quantity, we find that the variation between the actual numbers and what is declared in the invoice is not much. In view of the fact that the goods are used junk, a slight variation is not of much consequence. Therefore, we do not find any strong grounds to interfere with the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, we dismiss the appeals of the Revenue. C/187/2005 9. In this appeal, the Party has challenged the OIA No. 11/2005 dated 28-2-2005 wherein the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
