Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (9) TMI 11

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the appellant has paid only 4848 USD to the foreign supplier - reliance placed in the case of SAI IMPEX Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [1992 (7) TMI 162 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI], where it was held that the transaction value is not enhanceable in the absence of evidence of contemporaneous import of identical or similar goods and that if the manufacturer's invoice is available and genuine, is the best evidence of the price of imported goods - the enhancement of value is unjustified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/175/2007 - Final Order No. 41838 / 2017 - Dated:- 28-8-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial ) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) Shri N. Viswanathan, Advocate for the Appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the description and value shown in the proforma invoice tallied with the test report and the insurance policy respectively and the quantity was misdeclared to the department. As regards to the classification of goods, the test report clearly established that the said goods are made out of metalised polyester strip, nylon multifilament yarns and nylon monofilament yarn in which the content of metalised polyester strip is below 50%. In the Bill of Entry, the importers have declared as their goods as polyester fabrics classifying under CTH 60069000. Though polyester and nylon are synthetic materials, the goods declared as polyester knitted fabrics are not made out of polyester fabrics alone and predominately contain nylon monofilament and mult .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion and decorated by metallic particles; (vii) therefore there was no discrepancy in the description appearing in the Performa invoice and commercial invoice; (viii) they classified the imported goods under CH 6006 90 00 whereas the Show cause notice proposed the reclassification under CH 6006 33 00; (ix) since both tariff headings carried the same rate of duty, they did not gain anything by classifying the goods under CH 6006 90 00; (x) the classification done under 6006 90 00 could be treated as inadvertent mistake because the contents of fabric shown in both invoices were synthetic fibers; (xi) once the supplier himself admitted his mistake, the allegation raised in Show cause notice for fabrication of documents was unwarranted; (xii) i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... issions:- (i) The appellant filed Bill of Entry through the CHA declaring the goods as polyester knitting fabrics with its value as ₹ 2.26 lakhs based on the commercial invoice. The department has proceeded to enhance the value basing upon the proforma invoice. (ii) That the appellant has received payment through their banker namely Bank of Baroda and a certificate has been produced by them confirming the payment only 4848 USD on 14.6.2006. The overseas supplier has also given them a letter that they have not received anything more than this amount. (iii) Though the department contends that after test report the goods are to be classified under 6006 3300, it is submitted by him, both these entries attract same rate of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... th fall under synthetic material. That the description of the goods tallied with the proforma invoice as well as insurance taken was based on the value declared under the proforma invoice that therefore value declared in the commercial invoice cannot be accepted and the enhancement made on the basis of the proforma invoice is legal and proper. 6. Heard both sides. 7. With regard to the description of the goods, though the test report has been conducted, it is seen that the rate of duty in respect of both the classifications are same and therefore the contention of the appellant that they had any malafide intention to mis-declare or mis-classify the goods is not without force. Further, a certificate has been produced from the supplier .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates