Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2006 (2) TMI 564

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... als), therefore, he cannot file appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), before this Tribunal. Accordingly, his appeal stands rejected. 2. Appeal No. C/411/04-NB is filed by M/s. Cymex Time Pvt. Ltd. They are manufacturers of wall clocks, alarm clocks, wrist watches and are also importers and exporters. They telephonically placed an order on M/s. Alam Trading Company, Honkong for supply of mobile phones and watch parts. The goods were supplied to them by EMS Speed Post under three EMS post parcels. The Customs Air Intelligence unit took these parcels for X-Ray examination and they found that these were containing mobile phones and watch modules, therefore, the parcel bags were opened and examined. On examination of the Cust .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n that the appellant had mis-declared the value as well as the description of the goods and on the basis of contemporaneous import made by M/s. National Panasonic India Ltd., New Delhi directly from the manufacturer assessed the duty. He determined the value of the goods, as US $ 177 per piece on the basis of contemporaneous imports. He allowed deduction of US $ 5 per piece for standard box and battery charges and US $ 2 per piece for standard box packing from the assessable value of US $ 177/- wherever applicable and as requested by Sh. Ved Parkash Wadhwani in this statement dated 18-8-2000 and letter dated 31-8-2000. He also confiscated the goods under Section 111(1) and 111(m) of the Custom Act but gave the appellants option to redeem th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... orted in 2004 (178) E..L.T. 972 for the proposition that absence of declaration on parcels cannot be reason for rejection of transaction value. It was finally pleaded that as per the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractors v. CC, Mumbai reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.), transaction value should have been taken into consideration for assessment of the goods. 4. On behalf of the Revenue, it was argued that under Section 82 of the Customs Act in the case of goods imported or exported by post any label or declaration accompanying the goods, which contained the description, quantity and value thereof, shall be deemed to be an entry for import or export. Therefore, declaration made in the label on the parcel is requ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... consideration by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order has confirmed the order of the adjudicating authority. The plea of the appellant that the import made by M/s Ghana Traders should have been taken into consideration could not have been accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) as these imports were much after the import of the appellant. Reliance was placed by the Revenue on the following decisions: - (i)      Fine Chemical Suppliers v. Collector of Customs - 1993 (67) E.L.T. 25 (S.C.). In para 7 and 10 of the said decision, the Supreme Court has come to the conclusion that when the goods are mis-declared appropriate higher value assessed by Customs based on value of simil .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... goods to be assessed on the basis of contemporaneous imports. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the adjudicating authority on the basis of letter dated 31-8-2000 of Shri Wadhwani, Director of M/s Cymex Ltd. has decided the issue without issuing show-cause notice on the basis of the facts admitted by Sh. Ved Parkash Wadhwani in the said letter. The wrong declaration of the contents of the parcel as well as under valuation was accepted by him, Sh. Ved Parkash Wadhwani also accepted that the contemporaneous import value of the goods worth US $ 177 is the acceptable value to him as the correct value, as the goods were directly imported from the manufacturer. He, however, requested for deduction of US $ 5 per piece .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates