TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e did not reflect a bona fide and correct transaction value in view of another import consignment imported through Custom House on or about same period at declared price of US $ 575 per MT (CIF). Since this import was from Singapore though the country of origin was the same namely Indonesia, therefore the impugned order held that Rules 4 to 7 of Customs Valuation Rules will not be applicable. The Learned Collector proceeded to value the goods on the basis of Rule 8 of Valuation Rules. Therefore, he ordered the value to be fixed at US $ 575 per MT (CIF) Madras and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 80,000/- as well as penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellant. 2. Being aggrived, they have come-up in appeal. 3. Heard learned Consultant Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iously ignore the import around the same time at almost double the price. He further stressed that Rule 8 had been resorted to by learned Collector only because of the difference in quantity involved. He, therefore, prayed that there was no infirmity in the order-in-original. 5. We have considered carefully the arguments on both sides. We find that normally the transaction value is to be adopted unless the department can produce the objective reasons and strong evidence to show that the said declared value was not bona fide and correct. We also find that it is a well settled law that burden to discharge this rests on the department. We further find that in the instant case, the contemporaneous import relied upon by the learned Collector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove straightaway proceeded to value the goods under Rule 8. We feet that this is not a correct procedure. Because, firstly, it is for the department to discharge burden of proof because they challenged the transaction value reflected in the invoice declared along with Bill of Entry. Secondly, only if such a burden is discharged, then one can travel from the Section to the Valuation Rules under Customs Law by rejecting the transaction value. On the other hand the order-in-original, first uses the alleged contemporaneous import to first reject the transaction value and then admits that Rules 4 to 7 cannot be supported by this contemporaneous import. 6. In this connection, we take note of the decision in the case of Sushil Kumar Kayan - 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
