9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - The appellant has filed this appeal against OIA No. 15/04, dated 20th January, 2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Bangalore. Appellant imported certain items by air and claimed that the freight should be limited to 20% of the FOB value in accordance with Rule 9(2) of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. Along with the Bill of Entry they filed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esents CIF value and therefore, the same should be adopted for assessment purposes. The lower authorities have not applied Rule 9(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 properly. The Proviso to Rule 9(2) clearly says that in the case of goods imported by air, and the cost of transport of the imported goods is ascertainable such cost shall not exceed 20% of free on board (FOB) value of the goods. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B. The lower authorities have not appreciated this point. They have gone into a very futile discussion as to whether the price declared is FOB or CIF. We do not find any reason for rejecting the appellants claim to limit the freight to 20% of the FOB as per Rule 9(2). Hence we allow the appeal with consequential relief.
(Pronounced in open Court on 15-2-2006) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
