Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (11) TMI 31

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and thereby foregoing need for SCN, appellant made it unnecessary for Revenue to establish valuation any further as consented value in effect becomes declared transaction value requiring no further investigation or justification and as such violation of principles of natural justice cannot be alleged - Onus will be on appellant to establish that valuation as per his consent suffered from fatal infirmity and such onus has not been discharged – Valuation as such is upheld. It is simply a case of valuation dispute devoid of any mens rea on part of appellant - Appellant never consented for confiscation and penalty and did not forego its right for SCN or personal hearing - Confiscation and penalty ordered in violation of principles of natural .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion from the website of Dotmed , which indicated US$ 1,15,000 as the value of GE High Speed DXI CT Scanner of good condition manufactured in 2001. As this value was far higher than that declared, Revenue got the goods examined by Mr. IPS Arora, Chartered Engineer at ICD, CONCOR, Kanakpura, Jaipur, who after examining the machines adopted the value which was US$ 72,000 (average of US$ 29,000 and US$ 1,15,000) for the CT scanner of 2001 model. Similarly, value for the 2003 model was given as US$ 78,750. Revenue adopted these values by citing Rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. 2. The appellant submitted a letter stating that it accepts the value proposed by Revenue as detention and demurrage .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i) It was not a case for confiscation or imposition of penalty as there was no mala fide or mis-declaration. The appellant cited CESTAT judgement in the case of M/s. Handtex Vs. CC, Raigad [2008 (226) ELT 665 (Tri.-Del.)]. 4. Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the impugned order. 5. We have considered the contentions of both sides. We find that whatever may be the reasons, the appellant expressly gave its consent to the value proposed by Revenue and expressly stated that it did not want any Show Cause Notice or personal hearing. Even the duty was paid without protest. By consenting to enhancement of value and thereby voluntarily foregoing the need for a Show Cause Notice, the appellant made it unnecessary fo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ment in the case of Vikas Spinners Vs. CC, Lucknow [2001 (128) 143 (TRI Del],CESTAT, dealing with a similar situation, held as under:- 7.In our view in the present appeal, the question of loading of the value of the goods cannot at all be legally agitated by the appellants. Admittedly, the price of the imported goods declared by them was US $ 0.40 per Kg. but the same was not accepted and loaded to US $ 0.50 per Kg. This loading in the value was done in consultation with Shri Gautam Sinha, the Representative and Special Attorney of the appellants who even signed an affirmation accepting the loaded value of the goods on the back of the Bill of Entry dated 7-5-1999. After loading of the value, the appellants produced the special import l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d accordingly without protest, importer is estopped from challenging the same subsequently. It also holds that enhanced value uncontested and voluntarily accepted, and accordingly payment of duty made discharges the burden of the department to establish declared value to be incorrect. In view of the fact that the Appellants in this case have not established that they had lodged any protest and on the contrary their letter dated 21-4-1999 clearly points to acceptance of the enhanced value by them, the cited decision advances the cause of the department rather than that of the Appellants contrary to the claim by the learned Counsel. Thus, the valuation has to be upheld in the present case. 7. However, it is a fact that nothing has bee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates