9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1042X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elevance for the purpose of value - as the appellant has been able to establish the contemporaneous imports the value of which is almost near to the values declared by the appellant, the enhancement is unsustainable. Valuation in USD and time gap of the import of goods, subsequent period taken for sale etc, are valid grounds to reflect upon the expenses which the importer may incur to further dispose of his goods in India. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No.708 of 2009 - C/A/52970/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 21-4-2017 - Ms Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. V Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri A K Prasad Ms. Priyanaka Goel, Advocates for the Appellants Shri K Poddar, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa As per facts on record, the appellant filed Bill of Entry on 22.8.2008 for clearance of 54720 sets of drawer slides of various sizes, by declaring the classification of same under Customs Tariff Heading 8302. All other documents like Bill of lading, certificate of country of origin and invoices issued by the exporter M/s. Mount Overseas (HK) Ltd., were attached along with Bill of Entry. As the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot a manufacturer of the imported goods; that the impugned goods are known in the market as Drawer slides Telescopic and description given by them is drawer slides; that the order for the goods was placed by him during his visit to trade fair in China; he was shown another Bill of Entry relating to HM scrap of another importer which was assessed on value per Kg. basis; based upon the said value of scrap, the declared value of the Drawer slide is less than the value of steel scrap only. However, it is worthwhile to note here that said deponent nowhere in his statement admitted that value shown in the invoice was not the real price of the goods paid by him or settled between the importer and the exporter. However, pending adjudication, the appellant agreed to pay the duty on the basis of value adopted by the Revenue and prayed for the provisional release of the goods, which prayer was accepted and the goods were released provisionally on execution of bond and giving the bank guarantee. 4. Revenue made further inquiries from ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi and found that the value of telescopic channels of various sizes imported by M/s. Jyoti Iron and Hard Ware Store, New Delhi from M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en made from the trader and not directly from the manufacturer; that word telescopic was not declared in various documents along with the drawer slides / channels; that the value declared by the appellant is even less than the value of steel scrap; that the domestic market inquiry revealed goods to be valued on higher side. 7. On going through each and every reasons adopted by the adjudicating authority for rejecting the transaction value, we find that the said reasons are nowhere relatable to value of goods. The imports made in the name of M/s. S B International, and subsequent purchase of the goods on high sea sales basis from them have got no bearing on the value of the goods. The appellant have very clearly in their statement deposed that such course of action was taken by them to avoid sales tax, freight etc. Further, the import of the goods from the trader instead of manufacturer, could not be adopted as a ground for rejection of the invoice value. Revenue has also no where shown that the goods known in the market as telescopic channels but are shown as drawer slides in description of the goods, is of such an importance, so as to change the nature of the goods and its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... han the simple channels. If that be so, if telescopic channels are imported at the same price as is clear from another Bill of Entry, we really fail to understand as to how the other Bill of Entry are not contemporaneous and value shown in them cannot be adopted. The adjudicating authority has further rejected the evidence of contemporaneous imports by observing that whereas the goods in the present case were bought on high sea basis and imports at Kolkata were direct, the same cannot be considered to be at the same commercial level. We find no merits in the above distinction made by the adjudicating authority, as the import on high sea sale basis has no relevance for the purpose of value. As such, we are of the view that in as much as the appellant has been able to establish the contemporaneous imports the value of which is almost near to the values declared by the appellant, the enhancement is unsustainable. 9. It is further seen that the Revenue has adopted the value of the goods imported by M/s. Jyoti Iron and Hard Ware Store as also the market inquiries conducted and have arrived at the value through backward calculations. The appellants have challenged said backward calcul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
