TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-appeal has clarified as to whether the prices of the raw materials mentioned are the price in India or the prices in China and if so, what is the source for this information and also what is the cost of manufacture of these items in China, as these goods are of Chinese Origin. For making the allegation of under-valuation and rejecting the declared transaction value, the department cannot adopt the price of raw materials of the goods in India and allege that the declared price of the goods is less than the average price of the raw materials. No iota of evidence in support of the department's allegation of misdeclaration of value and absolutely no evidence of contemporaneous import of identical or similar goods in comparable quantity at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upta and Shri Devender Kumar Gupta. The appellant firm imported a consignment at ICD, Agra declared to be consisting of lighting fixtures from M/s. Kewal International Corporation Ltd. Hongkong and filed a Bill of Entry No. 17 dated 6-6-2006 for its clearance. The goods were declared to be of Chinese Origin. In the bill of entry the detailed description of the goods was mentioned as complete ceiling lights with tube, outdoor lights, coconut tree, fire work tree etc. The officers of Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence got the imported goods 100% examined and on examination, the goods were found to be as per the declaration in the bill of entry. It was also found that while in respect of the goods imported, in accordance with the prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejected and the value of the goods for the purpose of assessment of duty be raised to Rs. 9,03,537/- determined under Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. On this basis, he confirmed differential duty demand and also ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the MRP had not been affixed on the goods, the same were also confiscated under Section 111(d). Since the goods had earlier been released against provisional duty bond, the adjudicating authority ordered the appellant firm to pay redemption fine of Rs. 1.75 lakhs. Besides this he also imposed penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act on the importer firm and its partners as under : M/s. Imperial Glass Emporium Rs. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d has been passed by the proper officer, that in any case, just because the declared value of the imported goods on per kg. basis is less than the average price of the various raw materials like steel, plastic, glass, etc., the declared value cannot be rejected, as if, at all, such comparison has to be made, the comparison must be with the cost of raw materials and cost of production in the country of origin, that the declared transaction value can be rejected only if the declared value is much less than the price at which the contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods in comparable quantity have been made, while there is no such evidence in this case, that in these circumstances, there is absolutely no justification for rejectin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat since the goods imported were in pre-packaged form and MRP had not been declared, the same had been correctly confiscated under Section 111(d), that in view of the contraventions on the part of the importer, which rendered the goods liable for confiscation, penalty on the appellant firm and its partners has been correctly imposed under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 and that in view of the above submissions, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 8. We have considered the submissions from both the sides. 9. On going through the records, we find that the declared description of the goods was ceiling light complete with tubes, gate lights, coconut trees etc. and the goods on examination were found to be as per declaration. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aluation Rules, the department cannot allege that the value has been mis-declared. Moreover, the determination of value under Rule 7 has also been done in a very strange manner, as the department has not mentioned as to which the importer of identical or similar goods had been selling the goods in India at the wholesale price which had been adopted in this case for determination of assessable value under Rule 7. In view of these circumstances, we hold that there is absolutely no basis for rejecting the declared transaction value and making the allegation of under-valuation against the appellant. 10. Therefore, neither the duty demand on the basis of upward revision of assessable value nor the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
