9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Entry, Purchase Order etc., we find that the reference of such goods are not figuring in all the cases in the import documents presented by the appellant for assessment before the department. Thus, we are of the considered view that the original authority had not referred to the contemporaneous import in the proper manner as prescribed under Rule 5 ibid. The matter should go back to the original authority for appreciation of the facts to the effect that the subject goods imported by the appellant were liable for rejection and the value can be redetermined by referring to the relevant provisions of the Valuation Rules, 2007 - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Customs Appeal No. 87153 of 2013, 87154 of 2013, 87155 of 2013, 87156 of 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort of rejection of the same and re-determination of the value under Rule 5 ibid. He further submits that the goods in question imported by the appellant cannot be considered as similar goods as defined under Rule 2(f) read with Rule 5 ibid. In this context, he submits that the contemporaneous import price referred to by the department is not of similar quantity and the country of origin is different and the specification of the goods are also different. Thus, he submits that the value declared by the appellant in the Bills of Entry should be considered as transaction value for the purpose of duty assessment and such declared value cannot be rejected by taking recourse to the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. 4. On the contrary, learned AR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er as prescribed under Rule 5 ibid. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the matter should go back to the original authority for appreciation of the facts to the effect that the subject goods imported by the appellant were liable for rejection and the value can be redetermined by referring to the relevant provisions of the Valuation Rules, 2007. For carrying out such exercise, the original authority should properly examine the import documents for a correct approval that the goods in question were in fact identical and similar in all respects and the requirements of the valuation rules have appropriately been complied with for the purpose of redetermination of the value. For carrying out the de novo adjudication proceedings, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Relying on these judgments, he submits that comparison on the basis of loaded value with their value is not correct and it should have been on the basis of only transaction value. On a specific query made to the learned counsel as to whether the judgments to which he is referring were in respect of rejection of transaction value under Rule 12 or it should have been the value under Rule 4 or 5, the learned counsel submits that only after rejection of the value under Rule 12, the question of determination under Rule 4 or 5 will arise. Rule 12 of the Valuation Rules for rejection of transaction value or for not determining the value under Rule 3(1) of the Valuation Rules, is based on the doubt that may come that the Assessing Officer may have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
