9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd, we find that the adjudicating authority has referred to contemporaneous prices extracted from certain Bill of Entry. It is seen that the evidence in the form of Bills of Entry was not provided to the appellant thus, violating the principles of natural justice. The evidence of market enquiries was also not produced before the appellant in the case of watch cells nor were the market enquiries conducted in the presence of the appellant. In this view of the matter, we find that the matter requires fresh consideration after observing principles of natural justice in terms of the observations made - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. C/842/2005-Mum & Appeal No. C/1075,1076,1077/2006-Mum - - - Dated:- 7-9-2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No proper evidence was produced in the form of manufacturers invoice to substantiate declared value or the country of origin in respect of the watch parts. Shri Mohinderpal Singh authorized signatory also stated that the negotiations were done with the foreign supplier in Hongkong on telephone. 2.1. In the case of button cells of SR CR type, the adjudicating authority considered the lowest transaction value amongst contemporaneous imports. As regards the button cells of LR type the adjudicating authority observed that the brand name of Maxell was appearing as in the other cells and therefore, the source point for procuring the cells must be the same. He arrived at the value basing the same on LR Cells sold by Timex Watches through the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Customs (P) and the officers working under to him act as the officers of Customs in their appropriate level/designation. Therefore the preliminary objection of the Ld. Advocate is rejected. Even though the order of clearance on a Bill of Entry may be considered as an order of assessment, the department is not precluded from issuing a show cause notice for determining the correct value and demand duty in terms of Section 28 of the Customs Act, and for proposing confiscation under Section 111ibid. What is proposed in the show cause notice is not a review of the assessment order but a proposal to confiscate the goods for mis-declaration in terms of Section 111 and proposed revaluation under Section 14 and consequently demand dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir decision. In these circumstances resorting to Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules without considering contemporaneous prices is not correct legally in terms of the Customs Valuation Rules. Under these Rules the process of re-determining value has to be followed sequentially Rule by Rule. On the other hand, we find that the adjudicating authority has referred to contemporaneous prices extracted from certain Bill of Entry. It is seen that the evidence in the form of Bills of Entry was not provided to the appellant thus, violating the principles of natural justice. The evidence of market enquiries was also not produced before the appellant in the case of watch cells nor were the market enquiries conducted in the presence of the appellant. In thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
