Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Shriyan Enterprises And M/s. Chandra Shekhar Datta Versus Commissioner of Customs (E.P. Mumbai)

2015 (11) TMI 1148 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Demand of differential duty - Undervaluation of goods - Confiscation of goods - Penalty u/s 117 - Misdeclaration of goods - Held that:- Appellant had provided contemporary prices of goods imported from the same supplier. This fact has not been considered by the authorities below before arriving at their decision. In these circumstances resorting to Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules without considering contemporaneous prices is not correct legally in terms of the Customs Valuation Rules. Under these .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

conducted in the presence of the appellant. In this view of the matter, we find that the matter requires fresh consideration after observing principles of natural justice in terms of the observations made - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. C/842/2005-Mum & Appeal No. C/1075,1076,1077/2006-Mum - Dated:- 7-9-2015 - Mr. P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical) And Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri A.K. Chatterjee, Advocate : For the petitoner Shri A.K. Singh, Assistan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rs working under Commissioner of Customs (P). Investigations revealed that the watch parts did not bear any brand name or any other mark on them or on the packing. The country of origin was mentioned at the foot of the invoice as China/Japan which was found to be misleading. In the case of button cells it was revealed that they bore the inscription Japan on them. In the case of button cells of CR3032 type, the same goods were declared of Chinese origin in one Bill of Entry and of Japan in anothe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

zed signatory also stated that the negotiations were done with the foreign supplier in Hongkong on telephone. 2.1. In the case of button cells of SR & CR type, the adjudicating authority considered the lowest transaction value amongst contemporaneous imports. As regards the button cells of LR type the adjudicating authority observed that the brand name of Maxell was appearing as in the other cells and therefore, the source point for procuring the cells must be the same. He arrived at the 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

. The Commissioner allowed a discount of 50% on the retail prices of the button cells sold by Timex Watches to arrive at the retail price of the goods in question taking into account the brand value of the Timex Watches, Franchise. In his order the adjudicating authorities revalued all the goods and demanded appropriate duty. Further confiscated the goods under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) read with provisions of Section 117 of Indian Trade and Merchandise Act, and imposed fine in lieu of confisca .....

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 No. 15/2002-CUS(NT) dt. 7.3.2002 which designates the Commissioner of Customs (P) and the officers working under to him act as the officers of Customs in their appropriate level/designation. Therefore the preliminary objection of the Ld. Advocate is rejected. Even though the order of clearance on a Bill of Entry may be considered as an order of assessment, the department is not precluded from issuing a show cause notice for determining the correct value and demand duty in terms of Section .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ase of Arvind Exports (supra) is not correct because the facts were different. In that case the importer had contested that the order for home consumption clearance under Section 47 is an administrative order which was rejected by the Tribunal holding that the order under Section 47 is subject to review under Section 129D as it stood then. 4. The next argument of the Ld. Advocate that goods which are not available for confiscation cannot be confiscated and redemption fine imposed . We find in th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version