9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... astic products were imported form the manufacturer - the 10% variation is provided from that PLATTS rate, if the goods are imported form the manufacturer. In the present case, there is no dispute that the goods were imported form the manufacturer. The contention of the department is that the appellant have not obtained the prior approval of the jurisdictional additional/ joint commissioner. The appellant have admittedly submitted a letter on their letterhead. Even though the said letter was signed by agent since the custom agent is authorized person of the appellant, the letter must be considered as if submitted by the appellant only. Therefore, the said letter submitted by the appellant is a proper compliance of the standing order. Even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... % with certain conditions. One of the conditions prescribes in the standing orders was that in case of imports from manufacturers, variation up to 10% form PLATTS rate would be considered with the prior written approval of the jurisdictional Additional/ Joint Commissioner deligated to Deputy/Assistant commissioner by Standard Order No. 44/2016 dated 08.07.2016 of the commissioner of Customs NS (iii) JNCH) in order to arrive at the value in terms of the standing order (supra). The appellant through their customs house agent had submitted two letters dated 13.09.2017 and 16.09.2017 pertaining to their bills of entry on a letterhead of the appellant. The assessing officer rejected the variation of 10% from the PLATTS price, on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been denied. He further submits that as per the standing order dated 10.09.2012, the appellant have complied with the procedure prescribed in claiming the 10% variation form PLATTS rate. 2.2 Without prejudice, he submits that even though the letter disputed by the department is not considered, it will amount to procedural lapse and for which the valuation method decided by the department cannot be denied. 3. Shri A K Kanani, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. On careful consideration of the submission made by both the sides and perusal of record, we find that the standing order No. 15/2012 dated 10.09.2012 provided for valuation of 10% from PLATTS rate i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f submitted by the appellant only. Therefore, in our considered view, the said letter submitted by the appellant is a proper compliance of the standing order. Even if the said letter is not considered as proper compliance the prior written approval is only a procedural requirement. If all other conditions are satisfied such as import of the goods from the manufacturer then merely because the procedure of prior written approval cannot come in the way of allowing the 10% variation from the PLATTS rate to arrive at the valuation. We find that the standing order itself is a guideline and not an Act or Rules made under Customs Act. Therefore, the noncompliance of standing order is only a procedure lapse, for which the substantive benefit of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
