9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoices was US $ 30 per kg. However, Customs authorities assessed the consignments to duty after enhancing the value by 25%. Similarly, in October 2004, the appellant imported a consignment 'Mini Walkman'. The transaction value according to the invoice was US $ 0.32 per piece. This consignment was assessed and subjected to Customs duty at the enhanced value of US $ 0.395 per piece. 3. The appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the enhancement of value. The Commissioner rejected the appeals with the following observations "In all the appeals, the issue involved is that appellants have imported goods against contract and have filed bills of entry with transacted value. The department loaded the value which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the department in respect of aforesaid five bills of entry are valid and no interference is called for. The appeals are accordingly dismissed". 4. The present appeals are directed against the above order. The learned Advocate for the appellant has contended that assessments at enhanced values were clearly illegal inasmuch as the assessments are required to be done at the transaction value as provided in Rule 4 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules. It is also being emphasized that in the present cases, enhancement has been made without adducing any reasons for the same, thereby denying the appellant an opportunity to defend the transaction value. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the observation that the appellant had accepted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (Appeals). 9. It is well settled that the imported goods are required to be assessed at the transaction value unless the transaction value is required to be rejected for the above reasons mentioned in Rule 4 [ Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CCE , 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) = 2000 (41) R.L.T. 621]. We also find that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai reported in 2006 (202) E.L.T. 561 is not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as, there is no abnormal feature in the present case so as to warrant assessment based on notional price (Section 14 of the Customs Act). 10. From the factual position already noted, it is clear that there is no valid reason for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
