TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for rejection of the transaction value, without any reasonable and justifiable evidence. This has been the subject matter of various decisions of the Tribunal as also of various High Courts. One such reference can be made to Radhey Shyam Ratanlal V/s. Commissioner of Customs Raigadh [2005 (7) TMI 196 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI]. It stands held in the said decision that doubt of the proper officer about transanction value are irrelevant, which has to be accepted in terms of provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 unless exceptions under erstwhile valuation Rule 4(2) of the valuation rules are applicable-Reliance was again placed on Supreme Courts decision in the case of Eicher Tractors [2000 (11) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Goods were stock lot goods of various models and were offered for sale on ‘as is whereas basis’ and subject to the conditions that the importer books up the entire goods within the stipulated period up to December, 2010. Further on being queried by the AC, the appellant clearly wrote back that as the goods are of various models and various brands and were manufactured in various countries in terms of the agreement between the brand name owners, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Sanyo brand on as it is, where it is basis. As it is a stock lot the sizes will remain same but the models will be assorted. The prices are very reasonable and very competitive as it is a stock lot. The supply can be from any part of the world and the prices are CIF any part in India. The first shipment can be made within 7-10 days of confirming the order. The entire lot should be lifted by December, 2010. WE hope you will be confirming the order soon as as the offer is valid for 3 days only. 4. On receipt of said offer, the appellants vide their letter dated 27.5.2010, entered into correspondence with M/s. Argain Company Ltd., Taiwan. The said letter is being reproduced below:- Sub: Reg. Stock Lot Offer of LCD TV s Thanks a lot for the offer on the Stock Lot in your letter dated 25th May 2010. As you know the quantity of 3600 Pcs will be taking up a lot of investment from our end. The prices given by you are the prices for retail customers. We will be buying big quantity and investing a lot of money in this trade and we require wholesale prices from you. As the quantity is so big there should be a discount of atleast 20% for us. Please look at the offer again a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd June 2010 After that 300-500 pcs or more per lot. As this is STOCK LOT, consignment ratio of all 3 brand in different sizes will depend upon availability of stock at the time of loading/shipment. Payment Terms: 30 days DA from the date of acceptance All the above terms are non-negotiable. If above (ALL) terms and conditions are acceptable to you, kindly sign this contract and fax us the same acceptance. You will be bound by the terms and conditions of this contract. 8. On conclusion of the contract, the appellant intimated the Revenue about the said sales contract on 15.6.2010, which letter was responded to by the Assistant Commissioner vide his letter dated 26.8.2010, requiring the importer to furnish the following details: a. Country of Origin Certificate, b. Manufacturer invoice, c. Legible copy of the contract executed between the buyer and the seller, d. Model No. of the consumer electronic that are intended to be imported e. IGM, B/L and packing list, f. Certificate of authorized vendor to establish if the exporter/supplier is an authorized vendor/supplier of the manufacturer of Sony and Samsung goods. 9. In response to the said let ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fferent orders-in -appeal rejected the appeals filed by the importer. Hence, the present two appeals. 12. We have heard both sides at length duly represented by Shri Krishan Kant, learned advocate for the appellant and Shri Govind Dixit, learned DR. Ongoing through the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), we find that the enhancement of the value of the goods is primarily done on the ground of mis-declaration in the Bills of Entry and consequently based upon the market inquiry, the Sony dealers inquiry and NIDB data. As regards the mis-declaration Commissioner has examined four documents i.e. offer of sale dated 25.5.2010, from M/s. Argan Company Ltd. Taiwan, sales contract dated 26.7.2010, the proper intimation to the Assistant Commissioner, ICD Moradabad and Bill of entry dated 30.7.2010. These correspondences between the appellant and the foreign supplier stand reproduced in the preceding paragraphs of the order. The Commissioner has observed that inasmuch as the appellants have not declared the brand / size of the impugned goods, and has not obtained the brand name and model of the goods from the consigner as correct brand, there is mis-declartion and malafide intent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner (Appeals) is correct in his finding that if there is doubt about the correctness of the transaction value, Customs authorities were within their right to investigate the matter and based upon the evidence so collected, can proceed to decide the transaction value afresh. There can be no quarrel about this legal position. However, before going to the provisions of Customs Valuation Rules, transaction value has to be rejected as not accurate or wrong / incorrect assessable value based upon the evidence. Mere doubt, without any reason or rhyme cannot be made the basis for rejection of the transaction value, without any reasonable and justifiable evidence. This has been the subject matter of various decisions of the Tribunal as also of various High Courts. One such reference can be made to Radhey Shyam Ratanlal V/s. Commissioner of Customs Raigadh 2005 (190). ELT 244 (Tri-Del). It stands held in the said decision that doubt of the proper officer about transanction value are irrelevant, which has to be accepted in terms of provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 unless exceptions under erstwhile valuation Rule 4(2) of the valuation rules are applicable-Reliance was again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
