9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing been remanded to the original authority to finalise the provisional assessment prior to initiating any penal action. 2. Heard both sides. 3.1 The relevant facts, in brief, in party's appeal No. C/605/2007 are as follows : (a) M/s. Radiant Acrylic imported a consignment and filed bill of entry No. 50 dated 10-6-96; declared the description as acrylic sheet off cuts; declared the value as US $ 308 per M.T.;declared the net quantity as 47,739 kg. and overall value as Rs. 5,45,685/-. (b) On examination, in addition to declared quantity of acrylic sheet off cuts, it was found to contain multi-wall panels weighing 4730 kgs. (c) In pursuance of the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s acrylic sheets off cuts from different parties for subsequent sale. They sold the goods to Singapore based party namely, M/s. Sineximco Pvt. Ltd. The goods in containers have been shipped from Belgium party to India as per advice by the Singapore Party. (b) The relevant transaction is the one between the Indian importer and the Singapore based supplier. The Singapore party and Indian importer have entered into a oral contract at a price of 308 US $ per M.T. There is no evidence that the importer in India has sent any money in excess of what has been mentioned in the invoice raised on them by the Singapore party. (c) At what price the Singapore supplier purchased the consignment from the Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of oral contract which is rather unusual in the international trade. It does not stand to reason the Singapore party who has purchased the same 750 US $ PMT will sell at 308 US $ PMT by them. The Indian importer has not chosen to correspond to his supplier seeking any explanation for the said unusual transaction. 6.2 If the invoice price by Belgium party to the Singapore Party is correct then the invoice price by the Singapore Party to the Indian importer, obviously cannot be correct. A suggestion was made by the Belgium party might have over-declared the value to avail export incentive. This suggestion has to be ignored, as the Belgium Customs authorities who have conducted "checking of origin and value of acrylic sheet exported to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifferent prices in respect of these two consignments.
7. Therefore, the enhancement of value and demand of differential duty while finalizing the assessment is correct in law. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in upholding the decision of the original authority relating to bill of entry No. 50 of 10-6-96 is to sustained. The party's appeal is, therefore, rejected. On the same ground the Department's appeal relating to bill No. 53 of 21-6-96 is allowed and the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the order of the original authority is restored.
8. The party's appeal is, therefore, rejected and the Department's appeal is allowed.
(Pronounced in open Court on 16-10-2008) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
