Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2014 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 627 - AT - CustomsValuation of goods - undervaluation of the goods - Determination of correct value of the PU belts with buckles of Chinese origin - Held that:- As per the appellant, the supplier of the goods is the manufacturer of the same and the value declared by them in the Bill of Entry is the same value which is reflected in the invoice raised by the foreign supplier. The Revenue has not advanced any evidence to show that the said declared value is not correct value. In terms of the provision of 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, the value of the imported goods shall be the transaction value and the same is required to be accepted unless there are strong reasons to reject the same. Revenue has not produced any evidence to show that there was any additional consideration flowing back from the appellant to the foreign supplier, in which case the Revenue is bound to accept the declared transaction value. Apart from that we note that the attention of the lower authorities was drawn to the fact of another import made by the appellant at Tuglagabad wherein the value of the identical goods declared by them @ US$ 1.50 per dozen were accepted and there is no appeal of the Revenue against the said assessment order. If that be so, we really fail to understand as to why the said imports at Tuglagabad, which is in respect of the same very goods and from the same supplier, would not constitute contemporaneous import so as to adopt the same for the purposes of assessment. There is nothing in the said market enquiry to reveal that the belts purchased by the officers were of the same type, which stands imported by the appellant except the fact that the brand name was ‘Tuff Line’. Further, the same would reflect the retail sale price in India and would have no bearing on the wholesale price of the manufacturer - in the absence of any evidence on record to reflect upon the undervaluation of the goods, we set aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee.
|