9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under CTH 9031.80. They claimed the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Sl. No. 251 of the Table annexed to Customs Notification No. 21/2002. The value declared was US$ 4500 [CIF] (Rs. 2,19,069/-). Though the goods were originally assessed to duty on merits, the benefit of the above Notification was given to the assessee subsequently on production of the manufacturer's catalogue. However, later on, SIIB, after investigations, found that the goods was actually a spectrophotometer only and not a computer colour matching equipment. The original authority enhanced the value of the goods to Rs. 3.50 lakhs after reclassifying the goods under CTH 90273020, and also denied the benefit of the Notification to the assessee. The authority also o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of the goods and that the department had no case that the assessee had received from the supplier of the goods any amount over and above what was mentioned in the relevant invoice and declared in the Bill of Entry. He submitted that, in the absence of exception circumstances specified under Rule 4(2) of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988, the declared value was liable to be accepted. Learned SDR reiterated the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the issues relating to the Customs Notification and the value of the goods. However, it was submitted that the Commissioner erred in setting aside the fine and penalty imposed on the assessee by the original authority. 4. After examining the records and considering the sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the declared value. The preliminary evidence in support of the declared value is the relevant invoice is sued by the manufacturer/supplier. The appellate authority, further, noted the assessee's submission that the declared value was "for Customs purpose". It was apparently on this basis that the appellate Commissioner upheld the enhancement of value to Rs. 3.50 lakhs. We find that none of the reasons stated by the lower appellate authority constituted any exceptional circumstance specified under Rule 4(2), of the Customs (Valuation) Rules. It is settled law that the assessing authority has to reject the declared value on any one of the grounds specified under Rule 4(2), before proceeding to determine the correct assessable value of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re-quantify the duty amount to be paid by the assessee. 8. We have not found merits in the Revenue's appeal against the setting aside of the fine and penalty. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) held the goods not liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act after noting that it was not a prohibited or restricted item. Accordingly, the redemption fine was vacated. The penalty of Rs.- 5,000/- imposed on the assessee under Section 112 of the Act by the original authority was also set aside by the appellate authority. This decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) has only to be sustained and we do so. 9. The impugned order is sustained except in respect of valuation of the goods and the original authority is directed to re- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
