9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayer to set aside the impugned order. 2. From the facts on record, it appears that two bills of entry dated 25th January 2000 and 11th March 2000 were filed for import of 'beverages/carbonated soft drinks' which were referred to Special Valuation Branch as the importer and exporter appeared to be related. The imported goods were declared at a value of Rs. 13,39,835/- and this was enhanced by Rs. 2,67,967/- on assessment and order issued. In the impugned order, it is further recorded that, pending examination, goods were provisionally assessed, and a detailed questionnaire issued to the appellant on 1st February 2000. A further reminder was sent to importer on 10th July 2000 which was not responded to and it is further recorded that the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in Eicher Tractors Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC)], and of the Tribunal in Jindal Strips Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2001 (133) ELT 570 (Tri-Del)] and Pushpak Metals Corpn. V. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla [2014 (312) ELT 381 (Tri-Ahmd)]. 4. Learned Authorized Representative relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in Sew-Curodrive (I) Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2012 (284) ELT 294 (Tri-Del)] in exhorting us to sustain the impugned order. 5. The decision cited by Learned Authorised Representative has been rendered in the context of a declared relationship between the importer and supplier of the goods. In that context, it was observed: "13. Relationship between suppli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... try referred to; the reference to relationship flowing from a declaration cannot be fastened thereon. All of this is indicative of a roving inquiry without any prima facie reason to suspect a relationship. Burdening the importer with the responsibility to respond to such a vague inquiry is not only inequitable but is inconsistent with the valuation scheme in Customs Act, 1962. 9. Settled law requires acceptance of declared value as transaction value under rule 4 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 and rule 3 permits, in the event of sufficient ground for rejection of declared value, adoption of revised value but in accordance with sequential application of rules 5 to 8. No such exercise appears to ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
