9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Balkishan Dass Sons, filed Bill of Entry No. 233550, dated 6-11-2000 for clearance of 57.34 metric tonnes of goods. The description of the goods in the Bill of Entry was Secondary quality electrolytic strips/circles. The invoice covering the goods gave the description as : Secondary quality electrolytic tinplate strips/circles/ends both sides bright finish or both sides lacquered or one side bright finish and side lacquered/coated or misprint, size circles/ends 80 mm. Strips width 50 mm to 580 mm any thickness. Value of the goods given in the Bill of Entry was 195 US $ per metric tonne. Same was the price shown in the invoice as well. When the goods were sought to be cleared, adjudicating authority, namely, Deputy Commissioner of Customs, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... All the three consignments were cleared accepting the value at US $ 195 per metric tonne. The consignment now in question is also covered by the same contract, but the adjudicating authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs did not follow the value of the earlier consignments. He loaded the value to US $ 400 per metric tonne stating : On the other hand, the department is in possession of data showing clearance of secondary quality tinplates strips/sheets @ US $ 400 per metric tonne (CIF) at Mumbai Custom House. Same was pointed out to the importer during the course of personal hearing. The said document relied on by the adjudicating authority was not even made available to us at present by the learned Departmental Representative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for ignoring the transaction value, this direction to proceed sequentially from Rule 5 to Rule 8 cannot be sustained. Reference may be made to the following observation made by the Apex Court in Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 : It is only when the transaction value under Rule 4 is rejected, then under Rule 3(ii) the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially through Rules 5 to 8 of the Rules. Conversely if the transaction value can be determined under Rule 4 (1) and does not fall under any of the exceptions in Rule 4(2), there is no question of determining the value under the subsequent Rules. 5. The Commissioner, while passing the appellate order, entered a finding that the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
