9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame was categorically accepted by him. Applying the principle of the said case to the facts of the present case, there are no iota of hesitation to arrive at the conclusion that in the present case also, the proprietor of the appellant categorically accepted the re-determined assessable value on the basis of market survey carried out in his presence vide statement dated 20.01.2010, which has never been retracted, therefore, the same is binding on him. Penalty - HELD THAT:- There are no merit in the order of the authorities below in mechanically imposing fine and penalty on the appellant. In the order of the adjudicating authority, no justification has been recorded for imposition of penalty and directing confiscation of the goods - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods, affixed with details like importer s name, address, MRP etc. Hence, further investigation was initiated by the Department. During the course of investigation, statements of proprietor Shri Parampreet Singh and others were recorded. It was stated that the transaction value of the imported parts declared by the appellant is incorrect and accordingly, to determine the correct value of the said imported goods, necessary market survey was conducted in the presence of the importer and their CHA. The assessable value was re-determined accordingly and arrived at ₹ 31,20,612/- in accordance with Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of value of imported goods) Rules, 2007. A show-cause notice was issued to them on 29.06.2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is his contention that there was no such requirement in law to have the purchase order or E.mail correspondence while declaring the transaction value of the goods. He has further submitted that the appellant had never agreed to the market survey report and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the rejection of transaction value on the ground that the brand, group, specification or quality of the imported goods was not disclosed in the Bills of Entry. It is his contention that this being general auto parts, the literature, brochure etc. not available and there is no brand, specification or quality mentioned on the parts. Further, the authorities below had ignored the invoices produced by them and follow up note that the goods ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch lower than the RSP of similar goods available in the market. Consequently, after rejecting the transaction value under rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of value of imported goods) Rules, 2007, the same was re-determined under Rule 9 of the said Rules by conducting market survey with the consent and in the presence of the appellant and their CHA. The re-determined value was calculated as ₹ 31,20,612/- against the declared value of ₹ 7,14,659/-. Before and after the value was re-determined through joint market survey, the statements of the importer have been recorded wherein he has categorically admitted to the said market survey and accepted the re-determined assessable value, which now he cannot disown, hence i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is representative CHA. Also, it is not in dispute that the appellant accepted the result of the market survey and consequent enhancement of declared value in his statements recorded by the department after the survey and requested to release the goods. The said statements neither disowned nor retracted. In the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the methodology of re-determination of the value through market survey and also the validity of rejection of transaction value declared by them at the time of import of goods on various grounds. The Revenue s contention, on the other hand, is that since the appellant had failed to provide necessary information/ evidences in relation to the transaction value declared in the respective Bills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as observed as: - 35. The following position emerges from the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal: (i) When an importer consents to the enhancement of value, it becomes unnecessary for the revenue to establish the valuation as the consented value, in effect, becomes the declared transaction value requiring no further investigation; (ii) When an importer accepts the loaded value of the goods without any protest or objection, the importer cannot be permitted to deny its correctness; and (iii) The burden of the Department to establish the declared value to be in correct is discharged if the enhanced value is voluntarily accepted. 9. Applying the said principle to the facts of the present case, we do not have an iota of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
