9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... voice also. No fault found when the goods were delivered to the final bidder at the price quoted by the said bidder and accepted by the auctioneer with the approval of the insurance company. It is not right to question this by the Customs and to say that there has to be value refixed as per Rule 6 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1998 when there is no reasonable basis for this refixation of the said value. Also, damage in the goods in question were of different degree when compared with the goods which were auctioned earlier, where the damage was not to this much extent. Therefore, the value fetched during the auction as cum-value accepted. Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief - C/370/2006-DB - Fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Entry No. 339 of 27.9.2004 and against the declared value of ₹ 7.053 and ₹ 10.579 vide other Bills of Entry No.501 (dated 20.10.2004), No.510 (dated 25.10.2004), etc., and Bill of Entry No.108 dated 31.2.2005 as mentioned in the Assessment Order dated 20.12.2005 issued by Dy. Commissioner of Customs, SEZ, Cochin. The Department consequently fixed the value under Rule 6 on the basis of similar transaction(s). The Department gave personal hearing before deciding the matter by the Assessment Order No.1/60/2004/CSEZ/Cus. dated 20.12.2005. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Cochin SEZ rejected the appellant s declared value of ₹ 1,39,578/- at ₹ 2.147 (approx.) per piece and fixed the value of ₹ 7.053 per piece wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to those held in the past where smaller lots of damaged goods were offed for sale after permitting prospective bidders to inspect the lots cannot be compared with the present sale. (vi) There is no justification for the Revenue to refix the assessable value while making recourse to Rule 6 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1998. (vii) Under the Customs Act, duty is levied on transaction value and not on a value which the Department thinks could have been realized on a sale of the said items. There is no dispute regarding the procedural safeguards taken by the appellant during the auction, hence the value realized through auction has to be taken as transaction value for the purpose of assessment. (viii) The Revenue s finding th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the same item(s) viz., chipped table ware, the present receipts are very low as mentioned in the Order-in-Original, therefore, the receipts (value) received by the appellant have to be discarded and value refixed by the Department by the order of Deputy Commissioner has to be sustained. 5. The facts on record and the submissions of both the sides have been carefully considered. It is not the normal situation; here the goods manufactured in SEZ meant for export were damaged by the floods which affected the appellants factory premises. The appellant approached the Insurance Company for claiming compensation for all the damages done to their factory including for these damaged tableware. In association with Insurance Company, the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , United Insurance Company. It is not right to question this by the Customs and to say that there has to be value refixed when there is no reasonable basis for this refixation of the said value. The Customs contention that earlier similar goods were auctioned and that fetched different value cannot be accepted when the damage in the goods in question are of different degree when compared with the goods which were auctioned earlier, where the damage was not to this much extent. The appellant s action in treating the value fetched during the auction as cum-value is definitely acceptable and cannot be questioned under the prevailing law of Customs. The appellant has paid duty accordingly as is mentioned in the relevant invoice produced by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
