9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence of "identical goods". It is for this reason he undertook the exercise, as contemplated in Rule 6, by giving the example of "similar goods". We would like to point out at this stage that the instances which were given by the Department and even by the respondent himself, no objection was raised by the respondent that these instances were not of similar goods. Therefore, relying upon those instances by the Commissioner cannot be faulted. Price of ₹ 58/- has not been accepted by the Commissioner, and rightly so, by giving a very valid reason, namely, even in respect of that import by the importer declaring the value of ₹ 58/-, a show cause notice had been issued by the Department and the case was under scrutiny. In the show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... electronic goods had imported a consignment of 30,000 pieces which was described in the Bill of Lading as parts of VCD - LENCE WITH MECHANISM . In the Bill of Entry which was filed by the respondent for clearing of the aforesaid imports, the value of the goods was declared at US $ 0.72 per piece and total value of US $ 21,600 was arrived at in the aforesaid import. In support of this declaration of value, the respondent had produced Bill of Lading dated 14.4.2003 and invoice dated Since the goods were not purchased directly from the manufacturer but from a trader, the invoice produced was that of the trader who had sold the goods to the respondent. The goods were assessed to duty and ordered to be examined before clearance. On exami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to provide information regarding goods packed in branded boxes and the goods packed in unbranded boxes. They were also asked to submit manufacturer's invoice as they had informed that only eye of lens was provided by Samsung and rest of the parts were made in China and other information was also solicited in this communication. The Department also conducted a market enquiry in the presence of the representative of the respondent at two places i.e. Bhagirath Place, Delhi and Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi. They also gathered some information from M/s. Super Cassette Industries Ltd., Noida, who were the manufacturer of VCD players and were regularly importing similar goods in connection with the said manufacturer. Inquiries were also made fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stances furnished by the respondent are concerned, for reasons recorded in the order he discarded four out of five instances. The fifth instance which was given by the respondent mentioned the import of the similar goods at ₹ 71.50 per piece. He thus relied upon the ten instances which were given by the Department and found that the prices mentioned therein varied from ₹ 73.94/- and ₹ 134.08/-per piece depending upon the quantity and the period of import. In terms of Rule 6, the Commissioner took the minimum of the aforesaid price and thereafter fixed the transaction value at ₹ 73.94 per piece. This resulted in confiscation of the goods. However, the Commissioner allowed the respondent to clear the goods on payment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so stated by the Commissioner in his order itself. On the contrary as pointed out above, the Commissioner himself mentioned that no evidence of identical goods was available. Therefore, we do not understand as to how the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the Commissioner had loaded the value on the basis of import of identical goods. As mentioned above, when the Commissioner rejected the transaction value declared by the respondent applying Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, on that basis he held that Rule 4(1) would not apply. Thereafter he proceeded sequentially from Rule 5 onwards. As far as Rule 5 is concerned, again he stated that this would not apply as there was no evidence of identical goods . It is for this reason h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 58 per piece to ₹ 72.12 per piece and therefore the declaration of price in Bill of Entry at ₹ 36/- per piece was not accurate. We may observe that this price of ₹ 58/- has not been accepted by the Commissioner, and rightly so, by giving a very valid reason, namely, even in respect of that import by the importer declaring the value of ₹ 58/-, a show cause notice had been issued by the Department and the case was under scrutiny. In the show cause notice which was issued by the Department the price proposed was ₹ 90/- per piece. Thus, the entire basis of the Tribunal's order is misplaced as it is founded on total misconception of law and is also contrary to the facts on record. For the aforesaid reasons we se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
