9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per NIDB data without establishing whether the said data is relevant in respect of identical or similar goods. As Revenue could not produce the details of NIDB data, it is apparent from the findings of the original authority that such general application of value of other imports is not legally tenable. There is no cogent reason for rejection of transaction value for these imports. Quantum of redemption fine and penalty - Held that:- in view of our finding on the valuation of the imported goods it is found that redemption fine and penalty is sustainable only with reference to violation of Foreign Trade Policy. This is not being contested by the appellant also. Considering the overall facts and circumstances we find that redemption fine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stom, ICD, TKD, New Delhi. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that valuation adopted for the imported goods is not in conformity with the Custom Valuation Rules, 2007.The purported market enquiry resulting in guidelines for valuation of NIDB data for worn clothing adopted for valuing imported goods have no legal basis. Ld. Counsel relied upon various decided cases of the Tribunal to submit that that transaction value in terms of the documents submitted by the importer has to be first rejected on valid reasons. Thereafter, the provisions of Customs, Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 are to be followed. 5. Regarding violation of Foreign Trade Policy, the ld. Counsel submitted that redemption fine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... composition of goods. He concluded that Rule 9 has to be applied in these cases. We find that ld. Commissioner did not follow the provisions of Valuation Rules in proper perspective. The declared value by the appellants requires to be rejected under Rule 12 of the said Rules when the proper officer has reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to any imported goods. There is no discussion about the reason for rejection of declared value. The adjudicating authority only refers to the effect that importer was asked to justify the declared invoice value with documentary evidence. We find that scope of Rule 12 has not been followed by the original authority. While he concluded that Rules 4 to 8 are not applicable b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Kol)., it was held that Rule 12 by itself does not provide the method for determination of value. It provides a mechanism and procedure for rejection of declared value in case where there is a reasonable doubt that the declared value does not represent the transaction value; where the declared value is rejected the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially in accordance with Rules 4 to 9 . 10. After careful consideration of the findings in the original orders and discussions as above, we find that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in so far as valuation of imported goods are concerned. 11. Accordingly we se aside that portion of the orders dealing with valuation of goods. 12. The second point relates to quantum of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
