9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot correct - Held that: - While we note that the appellants contested the post-importation expenditure on the ground that the goods are fragile and some breakage is to be accounted for, we are not convinced by the said submission for the reason that the items are appropriately packed and no evidence is produced to support a particular quantum of breakage occurring during transportation. In the absence of such material evidence we cannot proceed based on simple assertion of the appellant. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Customs Appeals No.51117-51119 of 2017 - C/A/57650-57652/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 6-11-2017 - Shri Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri Devesh Tripathi, Advo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 9,53,073/- (for current consignment) and ₹ 1,23,26,237/- (past consignments) were confirmed in the impugned order. The goods were held to be liable for confiscation and were ordered to be released on payment of redemption fines. Penalty of ₹ 13 lakhs each was imposed on the other two appellants under Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, apart from penalties equal to duties on the main appellant under Section 114A of the Act. 4. The impugned order proceeded to re-determine the assessable value of the present as well as past consignment imported by the main appellant mainly on the ground that these were branded electric decorative lightings and the transaction is between exporter and importer who are related par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essable value of the goods. The assessable value so arrived was in the range of 25 to 30% of the MRP/RRP of the goods fixed by the importer. The method adopted for arriving at the assessable value is found to be as per the provisions of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 as discussed and justified in the foregoing paras. As such the re-determined assessable value of the live shipment i.e. the goods imported vide bill of entry No. 8059523 dated 21/01/2015 has been correctively arrived at ₹ 52,22,305/- in place of declared price of ₹ 19,01,175/- involving differential duty of ₹ 9,53,073/- and applying the same method the re-determined assessable value of the past imports in respect of 20 Bill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... much higher. The items are fragile and there is always a margin for breakage. The fixation of 15% for profit and 5% for postimportation expense is arbitrary and without any basis ; (d) the rejection of declared value is not sustainable as there is no evidence of any extra payment or any other way of compensation for the exporter over and above the value declared in the invoices. Average value of the subject consignments is much higher than accepted value of identical goods in various customs formations. (e) The appellants did declared Diyas and mAntra in the bills of entry and import documents. The invoices clearly mentioned the brand Diyas in the same style and manner as printed on the goods. These brands are not very po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bill of entry. We are not convinced with the submission of the appellant that the invoice had the name and style of brand name and accordingly there is no mis-declaration. It is necessary for the importer to declare the brand name of the product in the customs document (bill of entry) so that the officer will have the full details to examine the correctness of the assessment. We also note that Shri Anil Kumar Anand is 100% owner of M/s Inspired Lighting Pvt. Ltd., U.K. who held the ownership of brand name Diyas. He is also Managing Director of the main appellant with 50% share holding. Even the other 50% is owned by close relatives. There were financial dealings like unsecured loans and flow of monetary benefit which was examined by the O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions usually made for profits and general expenses in connection with sales in India of imported goods of the same class or kind; (ii) the usual costs of transport and insurance and associated costs incurred within India; (iii) the customs duties and other taxes payable in India by reason of importation or sale of the goods . 9. The appellants contested the deductive method mainly on two grounds :- (a) there were comparable goods though of different brands which could have been examined by the Original Authority to re-fix the assessable value ; (b) the deductions allowed for profit margin and post import expenses are not on the basis of any analysis or supporting evidence. 10. We have considered their submiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
