2014 (10) TMI 753

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r of various kind of furniture like wardrobe, dressing table, bedroom set, etc. On intelligence that the furniture imported by the importer is highly undervalued therefore it was decided that the appellants have not declared the correct value of the imported goods. Therefore, all the consignments were provisionally released. Thereafter, final assessments were proposed to be done on the basis of import of furniture made by Godrej Boyce Ltd. (GBL in shorts) for re-determination of the value normally adopted, on the basis of weight of the furniture and the price of furniture imported by GBL per Kg was made the criteria for re-determination of the value of the goods by the appellant. The said order was challenged by the appellants before the Co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Notice and provided all the details as required in the said Public Notice. Further GBL would have provided all the details of their furniture imported to the department and the same is required to be compared with the furniture imported by GBL and is not comparable to the furniture imported by the appellant. Therefore, the value on the basis of weight cannot be determined. Moreover, furniture is an item which is sold in the common parlance per unit as per design, size and the material used in it. If all these things are not common in the comparable goods, the same cannot be taken as comparable goods or similar goods to determine the value on the basis of the contemporaneous imports. Therefore the learned Advocate prays that the impugned or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y interchangeable with the goods being valued having regard to the quality, reputation and the existence of the trade mark. In this case, the sofa is comparable with sofa, table is comparable with table. Therefore, the impugned goods can be compared with the imported goods of same nature imported by some other importers. He further submits that the appellant has also imported shoe rack, and shoe rack has also been imported by GBL and size will be difference in the price of both the shoe racks as shoe rack comparable. Therefore price of the goods imported by GBL in terms of weight for loading of the price on the goods imported by the appellants. Therefore, transaction value has rightly been rejected under Rule 12 of the Customs (Valuation) R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X