9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rming to the declaration made in the Bill of Entry. Customs authorities on suspicion that the goods are undervalued refused to assess the goods and consequently did not release the same. On 5-7-2000, a show cause notice was issued disputing the value of the goods. The customs authorities proposed a valuation therein to the following effect :- (b) In view of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Port) the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (S.I.B.) vide order dated 21-7-2000 allowed provisional release of 50% of the goods on the basis of the provisional assessment upon payment of the admitted duty in full. Appellant paid the admitted duty in full and took release of the 50% of the imported goods in terms of the aforesaid order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sly unsustainable. (ii) In respect of the Non-Crystal Glassware the department relied upon the alleged price list of M/s. J.G. Durand dated 15-7-99 and 8-2-2000, that apart the department also relied upon the Invoice No. 754636, dated 22-3-2000 and the proforma Invoice No. 571658100, dated 3-3-2000 allegedly obtained by the department from M/s. Eagle Flask Industries. In respect of the said invoices the department did not provide any Bill of Entry showing actual importation of the goods at the price as indicated in the price list or in the invoice or proforma invoice. However, it was the case of the appellant that in the absence of the actual importation the department could not rely upon the price list or the invoice or proforma inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valued". Therefore, for imperot valuation, comparable import of the goods is sine qua non. We also follow the following decisions :- (i) Laxmi Colour Lab. v. Collector of Customs - reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 613 (Tri.) 1st Head Note & Para-5 @ P-615. (ii) Sai Impex v. Collector of Customs - reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 616 (CEGAT Sp. Bench "A") Last Head Note & Para-12 @ P-619. (iii) Kishandas & Sons v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 227 (Tri.) Last Head Note paragraphs 5 and 6 @ pages 229 and 230. No evidence of actual imports as supported by duty paid Bill of Entry copies/particulars has been adduced in this case. Valuation at higher levels, therefore, cannot be sustained. (b) Phot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
