9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D 1.25 per piece is obviously incorrect. The order in original clearly records that no contemporaneous import data of identical or similar goods was available and therefore adoption of rule 4 or 5 of the customs valuation rules was not possible. The order also records that the show cause notice proposes the deductive value method in terms of rule 7 of the said rules. However, there was issue with respect to said method as well as the market price of complete glasses were available but separate prices of mere frames were not available. In those circumstances, the revenue took assistance of chartered engineer. The appellant was kept in loop after appointment of chartered engineer and the chartered engineer after due study came to conclusion t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... frames were branded frames having brand name like OSIRIS . The revenue checked the prices of the frames of brand OSIRIS and it was found that the price declared in the internet of some of the frames imported were in the range of USD 199 to US Dollar 249 per piece. 2.1 Consequently, the consignment was opened in the presence of independent witnesses, authorized representative of CHA and authorized representative of custodian to ascertain the quantity and exact description of goods actually imported. On examination it was found that they were 1075 pieces of assorted spectacle frames as against declared quality of 1056. Apart from brand OSIRIS they were other international brand like ECO and EPI . As a quantity declare was incorrect the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be straightway adopted for valuation and no rule of Custom Valuation rule, 2007 supports this method for the purpose of valuation. He argued that, if value cannot be determined under any of the rules 4 to 9 of the said Customs Valuation rules 2007 then the declared value should be accepted as transaction value. He further argued that rule 9 does not provide for adoption of retail prices. He further argued that there is no evidence of import of identical and similar goods and stock lots or even fresh goods at the time of import from 2018 to 2020. He further pointed out that the goods imported were already out dated and older models. 2.4 Learned Counsel pointed out that when show cause notice dated 05.09.2018 was issued the appellant submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder in original clearly records that no contemporaneous import data of identical or similar goods was available and therefore adoption of rule 4 or 5 of the customs valuation rules was not possible. The order also records that the show cause notice proposes the deductive value method in terms of rule 7 of the said rules. However, there was issue with respect to said method as well as the market price of complete glasses were available but separate prices of mere frames were not available. In those circumstances, the revenue took assistance of chartered engineer. The appellant was kept in loop after appointment of chartered engineer and the chartered engineer after due study came to conclusion that the value of goods was Rs.11,43,420/-. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
