9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 of the Customs Act, 1962 can the department follow Customs Valuation Rules. The supplier of glass beads and importer are not related persons and there is no evidence on record that any amount in excess of what has been declared by the appellant has been repatriated by the appellants. Thus there is no ground for rejecting the transaction value. Appellant has been importing the same goods at the declared/invoice value and no objection was raised for those contemporary imports of the appellant. There is also no evidence on record whether contemporary imports relied upon by the department are Identical goods or similar goods as defined in Rule 1(c) 9.20/kg. to 19,069/- per kg. There is no wilful misstatement on the part of the appellant or an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng on behalf of the appellant argued that though assessable value of the imported glass beads/Chattan has been enhanced by both the lower authorities but duty demand of ₹ 5,98,736/- under para-19 of the show cause notice dated 31/12/2004 has not been confirmed.That appellant has been importing the same goods from the same supplier before and after the present consignment declared under Bill of Entry No.319559 dated 19/3/2004 and goods were assessed without any loading or imposition of redemption fine/penalty. Learned Advocate made the bench go through some of such Bills of entry where value of glass beadss has been declared as US$12.50 per kg. That as per Directorate of Valuation (D.O.V.) data for the relevant period the value of glas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declared value has been correctly made and upheld by the lower authorities with respect to glass beads/Chattons imported by the appellant. It is observed rom the case records that appellant has imported same goods before and after the consignment involved in the present proceedings. In other imports of the same appellant declared value has been accepted for the purpose of assessments. In the present proceedings there is no evidence that the supplier of the impugned goods and appellant are related persons. On this issue Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. Vs. C.C., Mumbai (supra) held as follows: "6. Under the Act customs duty is chargeable on goods. According to Section 14(1) of the Act, the assessment of duty is to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of these rules." 8. Reading Rule 3(i) and Rule 4(1) together, it is clear that a mandate has been cast on the authorities to accept the price actually paid or payable for the goods in respect of the goods under assessment as the transaction value. But the mandate is not invariable and is subject to certain exceptions specified in Rule 4(2) namely : (a) there are no restrictions as to the disposition or use of the goods by the buyer other than restrictions which - (i) are imposed or required by law or by the public authorities in India; or (ii) limit the geographical area in which the goods may be resold; or (iii) do not substantially affect the value of the goods; (b) the sale or pric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce paid by an importer to the vendor in the ordinary course of commerce shall be taken to be the value in the absence of any of the special circumstances indicated in Section 14(1) and particularised in Rule 4(2). 12. Rule 4(1) speaks of the transaction value. Utilisation of the definite article indicates that what should be accepted as the value for the purpose of assessment to customs duty is the price actually paid for the particular transaction, unless of course the price is unacceptable for the reasons set out in Rule 4(2). Payable in the context of the language of Rule 4(1) must, therefore, be read as referring to the particular transaction and payability in respect of the transaction envisages a situation where payment of price may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as confiscation of imported goods and imposition of penalty is concerned it is observed that appellant has declared the same description what is given in the invoice/customs documents not only in the present bill of entry but in the other imports of the same appellant. Assessable value of the synthetic glass beads is showing vide variations from ₹ 9.20/kg. to ₹ 19,069/- per kg. There is no wilful misstatement on the part of the appellant or any evidence indicating that some extra amount has been repatriated to the supplier for the present consignment. Therefore, confiscation of imported goods and imposition of penalty are not attracted in the existing factual matrix. 6. In view of the above observations and settled proposition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
