Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2015 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 1138 - HC - CustomsLegality and validity of Tribunal's order - Direction of confiscation of 8 seized prerecorded cassettes as also the cassettes already exported - Misdeclaration i.e overvaluation of goods resulting in contravention of the provisions of section 113(d) and (i) of the Customs Act - Held that:- the very transfer of the right to telecast of the said serial overseas is not given appropriate weightage while drawing a conclusion that the goods were over valued. The valuation of the goods concluded by the revenue at the rate of ₹ 21,000/ is rightly overturned as the valuation of the blank video cassettes and not the artrights which are sought to be transferred. Also the order of the Tribunal reflects that the said fact was appropriately weighed before it concluded that there is no contravention of the provisions of Customs Act. It has looked into the fact that the evidence, as to the terms arrived at in the agreement between the Respondent No.1 and the purchaser about transfer of the rights thereof, was not dealt with on record so as to establish that the said was over valued. Also it looked into the approach of the learned Commissioner that the export though also admitted to be under an agreement entered into with a foreign buyers and the remittance of ₹ 1.32 crores received by the Respondent No.1 through local banking channel was also not properly appreciated. Also it looked into the description and the valuation of the goods as was declared in the shipping bill in terms of the agreement and the physical value of the cassettes and the cost of recording thereof. The Tribunal having regard to the evidence brought before it, has rightly taken into account the transaction value of the goods declared as per the agreement to the extent i.e. ₹ 1.32 crores having regard to the transfer of not only the video cassettes but the contents thereof and right to telecast the same. Therefore the view taken by the Tribunal is a plausible view and no material illegality or irregularity can be noticed therein. - Decided against the appellant
|