2015 (5) TMI 962

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g the transaction value and also for arriving at the revised value as per the requirement of the said Rules. Indeed in the impugned order there is not even a whisper as to how and on what basis the transaction value was rejected even after accepting the appellants description of goods as correct. It is a settled law that resort to the said Rules for revising the value of the imported goods can be had only after the assessing officer rejects the transaction value in terms of Rule 12 of the said Rules on account of having reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the declared value. The impugned order does not disclose any basis for any such reasonable doubt after having accepted the description of the goods to be correct. Thus, we d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on behalf of the appellant. In its appeal the appellant has contended that once the goods were found to have been correctly described in the Bill of Entry, there was no basis for not accepting the declared value and there was also no ground for ordering mutilation. It is also contended that no basis has been given to reject the transaction, value and to revise the value upwards. 4. The Ld. D.R. reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. We have considered the contentions of both sides. We find that the adjudicating authority has accepted the declaration of the appellant as regards the description of goods. Therefore, it is hard to fathom as to why the mutilation of the goods was warranted, though, we note that the appellant ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as to how and on what basis the transaction value was rejected even after accepting the appellants description of goods as correct. It is a settled law that resort to the said Rules for revising the value of the imported goods can be had only after the assessing officer rejects the transaction value in terms of Rule 12 of the said Rules on account of having reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the declared value. The impugned order does not disclose any basis for any such reasonable doubt after having accepted the description of the goods to be correct. Thus, we do not find the upward revision of value sustainable and as a consequence there remains no ground to order confiscation of the impugned goods under Section 111(m) ibid .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X