Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (11) TMI 82 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2015 (11) TMI 82 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Valuation Import of Worn Clothing Value enhanced to US$ 1.40 per KG from US$ 0.80 Goods confiscated with redemption fine and penalty - Appellant contended that upward revision of value was not as per law as transaction value has to be accepted in absence of any evidence to reject the same - Transaction value first needs to be rejected before determining value Held that:- Goods involved in present case are worn garments whose value depends upon .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assessee. - Appeal No.C/214/2010-CU[DB] - Final Order No.52823/2015 - Dated:- 12-8-2015 - Mr. G. Raghuram, President And Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical) Mr. BB Sharma, DR : For the Respondent ORDER Per Mr. R.K. Singh : Appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal dated 15.02.2010 in terms of which the value of the worn clothing imported vide Bill of Entry No.115447 dated 03.04.2009 was enhanced to US$ 1.40 per KG from US$ 0.80 determined by the primary adjudicating authority which itself .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

imary adjudicating authority also noted that the Special Investigation and Intelligence Branch, after conducting enquiries had suggested a minimum floor price of US$ 0.80 per KG for such goods. The primary adjudicating authority also found that the Special Investigation and Intelligence Branch has conducted market enquiries to ascertain the margin of profit in respect of such goods. Noting that the appellant vide letter dated 22.05.2009 admitted that it did not have any import licence for the im .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on fine and penalty, Revenue questioned the valuation arguing that the correct value should have been US$ 1.40 per KGs. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned Order-in-Appeal accepted Revenue s contention and rejected the assessee s appeal and directed the primary adjudicating authority to look into the aspect of assessment, fine and penalty in view of the enhanced value at the rate of US$ 1.40 per KG. 4. In its appeal before the Tribunal the appellant has contended that upward revision of val .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

versus CC Mumbai [2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC)]. It also stated that worn clothing cannot be treated to be restricted. 5. The ld. Departmental Representative supported the impugned order stating that the appellant was well aware that the goods were restricted and therefore the redemption fine and penalty are in order. 6. We have considered the contentions of both sides. We find that in this case the appellant had voluntarily foregone the requirement of a Show Cause Notice and accepted in writing the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Eicher tractors (supra)] and Vikas Spinners Vs. CC, Lucknow [2001 (128) 143 (Tri.-Del.)] once the appellant accepted the value of US$ 0.80 per KG and the goods were released, it was not open for the appellant to contest the valuation of such goods. In this regard we partially reproduce para 4 from the judgement of CESTAT in the case of Grand Metal Industries Vs. CC, Amritsar (supra):- 4. By consenting to enhancement of value and thereby voluntarily fore .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

how Cause Notice as doing so, in spite of the appellant having consented to the enhancement of value and requested for no Show Cause Notice, could/would have invited allegation of harassment and delay in clearance of goods. When Show Cause Notice is expressly foregone and the valuation is consented, the violation of principles of natural justice cannot be alleged. The judgement in the case of Dunlop India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (supra) cited by the appellant was with regard to classification of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

very circumstance to re-determine the classification; for example, if determination of classification requires the physical presence of the goods and if the goods were not available, re-classification cannot be done and hence refund would not be granted. Similarly, in the present case, while value can be challenged but such a challenge would be of no avail as with the goods not being available and valuation earlier having been consented, the onus will be on the appellant to establish that the va .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ation of DRI about the valuation and has not indicated as to how that recommendation of DRI is applicable to the impugned goods in the framework of the Customs (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). The Commissioner (Appeals) has referred to the judgement in the case of Techno-marketing Vs. CC, Kolkata [2004 (164) ELT 113 (Tri Del.)] wherein it was stated that letter written by one Commissioner to another indicating value of various br .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version