9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 991X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easons have been recorded for ignoring the transaction value. Neither the market enquiry nor NIDB date will be a valid ground to disregard the transaction value - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/462/2006 - Final Order No. 41089 / 2017 - Dated:- 22-6-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri A.K.Jayaraj, Advocate For the Appellant Shri A.Cletus, ADC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The appeal is against the OIO No.5491/2006 dt. 25.09.2006. The appellant filed Bill of Entry No.274083 dt. 11.08.2006 for the import of skin cover for mobile phone, zipper cover for mobile phone and mobile phone battery and declared total assessabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of ₹ 28,22,805/- and differential duty of ₹ 12,13,521/- was proposed to be demanded. After due process of adjudication, the Commissioner of Customs finalized the enhanced assessable value at ₹ 4,36,325/- and demanded the consequential duty liability. The imported goods were ordered for confiscation under section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and allowed for redemption with a fine of ₹ 75,000/- and penalty of ₹ 50,000/-. 3. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been filed. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant Shri A.K. Jayaraj, Advocate submitted that the valuation adopted by the adjudicating authority is without sanction of the Customs law. He argued that the allegation of under val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s proposed for reassessment by reverse deduction from the local market price ascertained during the market enquiry. However, in the impugned order the Commissioner has adopted totally different line of valuation. He has looked into the valuation of contemporaneous import of identical / similar goods as found in NIDB data and proceeded to step up the value. We find that Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 as well as Customs Valuation Rules do not sanction such a method for redetermination of assessable value. The transaction value is required to be accepted unless there are valid reasons for rejection of such value as provided in the Customs Valuation Rules. In the present case, no valid reasons have been recorded for ignoring the transac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the additional factor that the stock in question was old and it was a one time sale of 5 year old stock. When a discount is permissible commercially, and there is nothing to show that the same would not have been offered to anyone else wishing to buy the old stock, there is no reason why the declared value in question was not accepted under Rule 4(1). 23. In the circumstances, production of the price list did not discharge the onus cast on the Customs authorities to prove that the value of the 1989 bearings in 1993 as declared by the appellant was not the ordinary sale price of the bearings imported. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed, with consequential relief, if any, as per law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
