Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2010 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (2) TMI 264 - AT - CustomsValuation- The Department challenged the value on the ground that the Contract dated 7-12-2007 between the Appellant and the foreign supplier had not been cancelled and that the Contract dated 8-12- 2008 shows supply of 13000 MT whereas Bill of Entry has been filed for 13,129 MT. While the issue relating to finalization of the value, in case of aforesaid Bill of Entry dated 2-1-2009, was pending, the Appellant filed the Bills of Entry Nos. 1035 dated 9-1-2009, 1098 dated 30-1-2009, 1058 dated 15-1-2009 and 1091 dated 29-1-2009 along with the supporting documents, as prescribed under the Customs Act. The lower adjudicating authority enhanced the value in case of B/E. No. 1012 dated 2-1-09 as US $ 107 as per the Contract dated 7-12-07 and in case of remaining B/Es. to US $ 40.50 PMT CFR as per Rule 5 of Valuation Rules, 2007. The Appellant preferred an appeal against the lower Adjudicating Authority’s Order with the Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order modified the value in the case of B/E No. 1012 dated 2-1-2009 to US $ 40.50 PMT from US $ 107 PMT and in case of remaining B/Es. upheld the Lower Adjudicating Authority’s order. Held that- there is no finding of the lower authorities that the in voices issued by overseas suppliers are fake or fabricated and that the transaction value shown therein has not been actually paid by the Appellant. Since the transaction value is determinable under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Rule 3(1) of the Valuation Rules, the question of resorting to assessment under Rule 5 does not arise. The transaction value declared in the instant case has been rejected without the sanction of law. Therefore, the impugned Order is not sustainable, hence set aside. The Appeal is allowed.
|