9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nhancement of value - case of appellant is that the import was a bulk purchase under quantity import hence enjoyed discount - Held that: - the appellants have not produced any evidence in support of their claim that the declared price was correct transaction value, before any of the lower authorities - both exporter and consignee are identical, aspect which would definitely raised doubt about corr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imported goods are much lower than the value of similar imported goods. Accordingly, in adjudication proceedings, the original authority enhanced the value of the imported goods to USD 33527.40 (Rs. 13,36,067/-) and confiscated the impugned goods under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, however, gave an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of ₹ 3,00,000/- under Section 125 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities have not followed the valuation rules for determination of the assessable value of the impugned goods. 3. On the other hand, on behalf of the department, Ld. DR, Shri B. Balamurugan, supports the impugned order and submitted that the appellants have not produced any evidence in support of the declared value. Further, the exporters as well as consignees were one and the same. He also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aspect which would definitely raised doubt about correctness of the declared imported value, at the same time lower authority has gone by the Section 14 (1) of Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs Valuation Rules 2007, rejected the value under Rule 12 and consequently to arrive at the enhancement in value. We are therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authorities rejecting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
