Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 725 - AT - CustomsValuation - rejection of declared value - transaction value in terms of Section 14 of the Customs Act read with Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation rules (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rule 1988 - Polyester Metallic Yarn / Polyester Metallised Film - demand of differential duty u/s 28 of the (1) of the CA, 1962 - Pure Silver Metallic Polyester Yarn - Held that: - the investigation was initiated on the basis of intelligence that the Appellant firm had been importing Pure Silver Metallic Yarn/ Film at an undervalued price and the visit was made to the premises of jobworker M/s Divyesh & Bros. The authorities did not conduct any test of goods as it turned out that the test report No. TC/LM/SE4464/2006-07 dt. 15.09.2006 issued by the Textiles Committee, Ministry of Textiles, Govt. of India, Textile Laboratory and Research Center, Mumbai on the drawn by the Customs, Shava from the B/ E No. 892058 dt. 05.09.2006 revealed that there is no silver or gold content in the films imported by the Appellant firms. The revenue thus accepted that the imported goods were Polyester Silver metallised polyester film/ yarn with no content of silver or gold. Only for the reason that the insurance policy of some of the consignments of being higher amount the value cannot be enhanced. The decision in the case of ANAND MAHINDRA Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (IMPORT), MUMBAI [2008 (2) TMI 104 - CESTAT MUMBAI] relied upon. In order to hold the imports as contemporaneous and to invoke Rule 6 of Customs Valuation Rules, it is necessary to show that the goods are identical goods' or ‘similar goods'. Such goods have to be same in all specifications such as physical characteristics, quality, country of origin, quantity - the allegation of undervaluation against the Appellant firms does not establish. Demand of duty, penalty and fine not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|