TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Counsel for the appellants submits that, their business model was informed to the Commissioner and have produced the original contract along with bank payment remittance advice on 06/09/2012 and this being so rejection of the transaction value was incorrect; He further submits that none of the conditions illustrated under Rule 12 exist in the instant case and therefore, the rejection was not proper and legal. We find that Learned Commissioner finds that the importer was accepting the loaded value of the consignments cleared earlier and for that reason the importer does not have any reason for not accepting the loading of the value in the instant case. It is also not explained as to how the situations illustrated under Rule 12 are exis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect; the value was liable to be rejected under Rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. On compilation of the proceedings, after according a personal hearing, Learned Commissioner: 1. Confiscated the impugned goods under Section 111(M) of the Customs Act,1962; however, he gave an option to redeem the goods on a payment of a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- 2. Rejected the value declared of Rs. 2,31,35,872.20/- under Rule 12 of CVR, 2007 and ordered for re-assessment of impugned goods at a value of Rs.2,48,67,482/- 3. Imposed a penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- under Section 112(A) of the Customs Act,1962. 3. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellants are regular importers of Copp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (c) Special discounts to exclusive agents; (d) Mis-declaration of the goods' description, quality, quantity, country of origin, year of manufacture or production; (e) Non-declaration of the goods' brand, grade, specifications relevant to the value thereof; (f) Fraudulent or manipulated documents 5. Learned Counsel further submits that, the import in question does not suffer from any of the flaws cited above; the price quoted was a competitive price without any discount; the averment of the Commissioner that the importer having accepted the value loading in the past has no reason for refusal in the intent case. Learned Counsel further submits that the issue is no longer res integra as this bench wide final order no. 60934 dated 12/07 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of invoice, Learned Commissioner has not shown any reason to reject the declared value. On going through the explanation given by the appellants for deviation from LME price, we find that the same are normal in the trade. We find that this explanation given by the appellants was neither controverted with evidence, nor with any reasoning. It is also not explained as to how the situations illustrated under Rule 12 are existing and no case of payment of differential amounts through non-banking channels is alleged. Under these circumstances, we find that Revenue has not made any case for rejection of the transaction value i.e, the value declared by the importer. 9. We also find that acceptance of the loaded value, in the past, for whatever r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
