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 (3) TMI 637

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ignment covered under Bill of Entry No. 972858, dated 18-11-2000 pertaining to the import made by the appellant in regard to 50 pieces of EIKI SSL-O film projectors 16 mm. The declared value was US $ 280 per piece. The Revenue after detailed examination has enhanced the value per piece to US $ 1960 per piece on the basis of the price available on website HTTP ://www.eiki.com. A discount of 30% from the internet retail price i.e. US $ 1960 per piece was worked out to US $ 1372 per piece on the goods imported. 3. The following submissions were made by the importer challenging the enhancement of the declared value. (i) The Department had relied on the price ascertained by the Consulate General of India (CGI) at USA, which has also bee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was submitted that price given in the internet quotation and that furnished by CGI is the retail price in US $ for sale in USA. It was submitted that Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation (DPIG) Rules, 1988 specifically provides that price of the goods in the domestic market of the country of exportation cannot be adopted as the basis of the valuation of the goods imported in to India. Hence, it was submitted that in view of this specific prohibition in the said Rule 8 adoption of internet retail price in USA is not legal and correct. Hence, they pray for accepting the declared price. (viii) It was further submitted that no basis of 30% deduction from internet retail price had also been advanced in the show cause notice. (ix) It was furthe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lms, USA, the supplier-trader had certified the correctness of declared price of US $ 280. Furthermore, the Indian 16mm projectors of like kind and quality are available for Rs. 20,000/- approximately. In support to this contention, certain sale invoices of Indian goods had been submitted. (xii) It was also submitted that M/s. Inspirated Films and the importer were not related and the price is thus not influenced by the alleged relationship. (xiii) It was also submitted that the value after rejection under Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation (DPIG) Rules, 1988 has to be determined under Rules 5 to 8 sequentially as laid down in Rule 3. Rule 10A does not override the provisions of Rule 3 or Rules 5 to 8. The Show cause notice directly pro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ) Mohan Sales (India) v. CC, Calcutta 2000 (121) E.L.T. 736 (T) = 2000 (40) RLT 17. He relied on the judgments of Abdul Halini (supra) for rejection of the letters of CGI in New York. 6. The learned JDR read out the Commissioner s order in detail and also filed the following citations : (i) Sharp Business Machines Pvt Ltd. - 1990 (49) E.L.T. 640 (S.C.). (ii) Mirah Decor v. CC - 1993 (65) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). (iii) Pradeep Kedia v. CC - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 620 (T). 7. On a careful consideration, we notice that the Department has proceeded to adopt the internet prices of the manufacturer as sold in the retail market in USA. The contention of the appellant is that such adoption of the price is against law and Rule 8 of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ment is clearly distinguishable. In the case of Mirah Decor (supra), the Custom authorities had relied on the price quotation obtained by them from the foreign supplier. This matter was remanded by the Apex Court for de novo and hence, this judgment is not directly applicable to the facts of the case. In the case of Pradeep Kedia (Supra), the Revenue relied on the pricelist from the manufacturer s themselves but in the present case the manufacturer has clarified that the price shown in the internet is not to be taken seriously while it was for some other obsolete goods, which has not been supplied to the importer. This case is also not applicable to the present case. 9. Furthermore, we take into consideration the plea of the appellant tha .....

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