9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 975X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustainable. This Court do not find any iota of evidence in support of the department's allegation of mis-declaration of value and absolutely no evidence of contemporaneous import of identical or similar goods in comparable quantity at higher price had been produced - Just because the partner of the importer firm agrees for determination of the value under Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules, the department cannot allege that the value has been mis-declared - Moreover, the determination of value under Rule 7 has also been done in a very strange manner, as the department has not mentioned as to which the importer of identical or similar goods had been selling the goods in India at the wholesale price which had been adopted in this case for determination of assessable value under Rule 7 – Therefore, there is absolutely no basis for rejecting the declared transaction value and making the allegation of under-valuation against assesse – Thus, neither the duty demand on the basis of upward revision of assessable value nor the confiscation of the goods u/s 111(m) for alleged mis-declaration of value of the goods is sustainable. Liability of Confiscation of goods u/s 111(m) - Non affixing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he department was of the view that the declared price of the goods is on much lower side as per kg. value of the goods is even less than the price of the raw materials - plastic, glass, steel, etc. Statements of Shri Sumit Kumar, partner of the appellant firm were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 wherein while stating that he had imported these goods for the first time, he, however agreed that the value of the goods for the purpose of charging the duty may be assessed under Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 on the basis of wholesale market price in India of the similar or identical goods. In these statements, he also agreed that the price of the imported goods determined on this basis would be much higher than the value declared and accordingly, he deposited an amount of Rs.4.5 Lakhs on 18.2.2006 towards his duty liability. Since the value of the goods appeared to have been mis-declared, the goods also appeared to be liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. 1.3 Accordingly, after issue of show cause notice, the Joint Commissioner vide order-in-original no.04/JC/08 dated 22.6.2007 ordered that the declared CIF value of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the proper officer, that in any case, just because the declared value of the imported goods on per kg. basis is less than the average price of the various raw materials like steel, plastic, glass, etc., the declared value cannot be rejected, as if, at all, such comparison has to be made, the comparison must be with the cost of raw materials and cost of production in the country of origin, that the declared transaction value can be rejected only if the declared value is much less than the price at which the contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods in comparable quantity have been made, while there is no such evidence in this case, that in these circumstances, there is absolutely no justification for rejecting declared value, that even if the declared value is rejected, the value has to be determined by sequentially applying Rule 5, 6, 7, 7A and 8 of the Valuation Rules and the department cannot jump directly to Rule 7, that the wholesale market price of identical or similar goods has been taken on arbitrary basis, and it has not even been disclosed as how sale price had been adopted, that since there is no mis-declaration of value, the goods are not liable for confi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chinese Origin. For making the allegation of under-valuation and rejecting the declared transaction value, the department cannot adopt the price of raw materials of the goods in India and allege that the declared price of the goods is less than the average price of the raw materials. In any case the price of the raw materials and manufacturing cost for this purpose has to be of the country in which the goods had been manufactured. Therefore, the very basis for rejecting the declared transaction value is not sustainable. Besides this, we do not find any iota of evidence in support of the department's allegation of mis-declaration of value and absolutely no evidence of contemporaneous import of identical or similar goods in comparable quantity at higher price had been produced. Just because the partner of the importer firm agrees for determination of the value under Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules, the department cannot allege that the value has been mis-declared. Moreover, the determination of value under Rule 7 has also been done in a very strange manner, as the department has not mentioned as to which the importer of identical or similar goods had been selling the goods in Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
