9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the declared value is inconsistent with the essence of section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 nor of any ground, within the prescription of rule 3(4) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 enabling recourse to subsequent alternatives. Nor is there any narration in the impugned order that can lead us to conclude that the process set for invoking rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 had been taken to its logical conclusion. The value adopted in the impugned order has not been shown to lack the impediments enumerated in rule 9(2) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 which is essential as the reasons that prompted the trade ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat overinvoicing to the extent of 39% at US $ 376,514.55 (₹ 189,19,856.14) and that the two specific lots had value of US$ 66,870 indicating overvaluation of 153% with reference to declared value of US$169, 436. 2. Commissioner of Customs, Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai, in impugned order [no. COMMR/TKG/ADJN/13/2009-10 dated 13th January 2010], re-determined the value at ₹2,11,06,256 under rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 and confiscated the impugned goods under section 111(d) and 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 while allowing redemption under section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 on payment of fine of ₹ 7,50,000. In addition to challenge of these detriments t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Customs, Ahmedabad [2010 (250) ELT 310 (Tri-Ahmd)]. Learned Counsel also contended that cross-examination of individuals had been incorrectly refused by the adjudicating authority. 5. Learned Authorized Representative argued that the exercise in valuation had been undertaken in accordance with established norms and instructions. It was also submitted that 19. . (i) . (ii) The valuation of diamonds is a tricky subject and it carries with it the requirement of inherent expertise. The best suited persons for such job are, therefore, experienced members from the same trade. Tarn of the opinion that no fruitful purpose could have been served even after cross-examination of the Trade Panel Experts because it is not the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is well within this range. in the impugned order makes it abundantly clear that no prejudice had been caused to appellants by the discarding of plea for cross-examination. 6. The issue involved in this appeal is alleged overvaluation of cut and polished diamonds for the adjudicating authority has relied upon two trade advisory panel reports to discard the declaration and to conclude that the goods had been overvalued warranting resort to confiscation under section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 and consequent penalties under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. The difference between the declared value and the ascertained value, even with such flaws as alleged by Learned Counsel, is just about 20%. We also notice that the first panel had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 enabling recourse to subsequent alternatives. Nor is there any narration in the impugned order that can lead us to conclude that the process set for invoking rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 had been taken to its logical conclusion. The value adopted in the impugned order has not been shown to lack the impediments enumerated in rule 9(2) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 which is essential as the reasons that prompted the trade advisory panel to arrive at the disputed values is not on record. In sum, there has been blatant disregard not only of the scheme of valuation, now in force ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
