9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants imported PU leather cloth through Visak port. The unit price declared was 0.90 US$ 0.90 US$ was the concessional rate of duty claimed under Sl. No. 110 List 3A of Notification No. 20/99-Cus., dated 28-2-99 which exempted insoles and mid-soles or sheets if they are imported for use in leather industry and such exemption is restricted to actual users of goods. According to Revenue, there was mis-declaration of value and description of the goods. In Calcutta Customs House, M/s. Bharath Leather Company imported PU leather cloth of Taiwanese origin on 6-5-99 and value accepted for purpose of assessment was US$ 2.00 per meter CIF. It was also felt that the impugned item is not exclusively to be used for insole and mid-sole in leather ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p; The appellant had sold the goods only to a manufacturer of the leather industry who are the actual users and had correctly availed the benefit of Notification No. 20/99-Cus., dated 28-2-99. They had also placed on record, the bills of entry of other importers. The Commissioner ignored the submissions of the appellants and passed the impugned order. (iii) The Commissioner relied on price in respect of the clearance effected by M/s. Bharath Leather Industry which was US$ 2 per meter and on the basis of the said documents, issued a show cause notice for refixing the value at US$ 2 per meter. (iv) Even though in the recital to the show cause notice there is an allegation that concessional rate of duty under notifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants and not actual users. (viii) The Commissioner failed to note that under Sl. No. 110 List 3A of the Notification No. 20/99 no condition of actual user has been made. Therefore, the Commissioner has gone beyond the scope of the exemption Notification. (ix) In the show cause notice, there has been no mention of any situation mentioned in Rule 4(2) of Customs Valuation Rules for rejecting the transaction value. The department has not produced any document to show as to why the transaction value should be rejected. On this ground the appellants relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rock Wood Products v. C.C. [2006 (74) RLT 271] wherein the Tribunal has followed the ratio of the Apex Court in the case of Ei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsp; The Commissioner's decision on valuation is based on the value of similar goods imported by M/s. Bharath Leather Industries. (ii) The goods in question were supplied in different colours such as black, cream, red, grey, etc., and have multiple users as upholstery material, car seat covers etc. (iii) The said goods may also find use as insole for footware. Definitely the goods in question were not designed and manufactured for exclusive use as footware. The goods are not having any special characteristic to identify them as meant for exclusive use in the manufacture of footware. The suppliers have in the invoices mentioned that the sheets are for insole. This has been done at the behest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner has not at all been supported by any investigation. Moreover, the Commissioner has stated that the impugned goods are capable of multiple uses and therefore, the benefit of the said exemption Notification is not available to the appellants. While stating that the impugned goods have multiple uses, the Commissioner has not relied on any expert opinion or test report. The Commissioner's views cannot be taken very seriously, because without proper evidence gathered through investigation, such opinions, will not survive scrutiny of judicial fora. The appellants have stated that the impugned items have been sold to actual users only and in the Nhava Sheva port, the benefit of exemption notification was given to them. All these av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
