Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2014 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 791 - AT - CustomsValuation of goods - Misdeclaration of goods - Confiscation of goods - Held that:- declared description of the goods was ceiling light complete with tubes, gate lights, coconut trees etc. and the goods on examination were found to be as per declaration. As regards the allegation of misdeclaration of value, we find that the main basis for not accepting the declared value is that the per kg. price of the goods is less than the average price of the raw materials - plastic, glass, steel, etc. However, the department has neither in a show cause notice nor in order-in-original nor the impugned order-in-appeal has clarified as to whether the prices of the raw materials mentioned are the price in India or the prices in China and if so, what is the source for this information and also what is the cost of manufacture of these items in China, as these goods are of Chinese Origin. For making the allegation of under-valuation and rejecting the declared transaction value, the department cannot adopt the price of raw materials of the goods in India and allege that the declared price of the goods is less than the average price of the raw materials. No iota of evidence in support of the department's allegation of misdeclaration of value and absolutely no evidence of contemporaneous import of identical or similar goods in comparable quantity at higher price had been produced. Just because the partner of the importer firm agrees for determination of the value under Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules, the department cannot allege that the value has been mis-declared. Moreover, the determination of value under Rule 7 has also been done in a very strange manner, as the department has not mentioned as to which the importer of identical or similar goods had been selling the goods in India at the wholesale price which had been adopted in this case for determination of assessable value under Rule 7. In view of these circumstances, we hold that there is absolutely no basis for rejecting the declared transaction value and making the allegation of under-valuation against the appellant - Therefore, neither the duty demand on the basis of upward revision of assessable value nor the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) for alleged misdeclaration of value of the goods is sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee.
|