Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import) , Mumbai

2015 (11) TMI 1226 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Valuation - Enhancement in value of goods - claim of benefit of preferential rate of duty - denial of the benefit of Notification No. 321/76-Cus dated 2.8.1976 - Held that:- From the documents, we find that the adjudicating authority has compared the incomparable. The certificate of origin is issued by PIC showing the date of invoice as 12.3.1984 whereas the invoice submitted with the Bill of Entry is issued by the exporter i.e. M/s. Transicom Burma and will naturally be of a later date i.e. on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eight and insurance were paid separately. Revenue s case is based on technicalities on account of so called discrepancies some of which we have clarified in the para above. Revenue s case is that the COO issued from Singapore does not indicate the invoice number.

Departure date i.e. 28.3.1984 indicated in the COO issued at Singapore tallies with the date of invoice issued by M/s. Transicom. The adjudicating authority has also stated that whereas the COO issued at Singapore shows 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

submitted later. Although, they bear the same number and date, the first invoice does not indicate CIF basis whereas the other copy indicates CIF basis. It appears that when the appellant were asked to submit whether shipment is on FOB or CIF basis, they have added CIF on the copy of the invoice submitted later. - there is sufficient co-relation between various documents to support the view that the invoice is on CIF basis. Revenue has not been able to verify from the Bank through which L/C was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.S. Pruthi This appeal is directed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal in which the Commissioner upheld the decision of the lower authority to enhance the assessable value and deny the benefit of Notification No. 321/76-Cus dated 2.8.1976. 2. The appellant imported 203.261 MTs of Crude Glycerin vide Bill of Entry dt. 11.04.1984. The value declared was as per invoice No. 10/334 dt. 28.3.1984 issued by M/s. Transicom (Burma). The appellant claimed the benefit of preferential rate of duty under No .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/-. 3. The contention of the Ld. Counsel is that the noting on the reverse of the Bill of Entry indicates that the COO certificate was produced. Further, he draws our attention to the certificate of the manufacturer i.e. Pharmaceutical Industries Corporation Burma certifying the goods to be Burmese Origin . Similarly, the certificate of the surveyor that is M/s. SGS (Burma) Ltd. also showed the origin as Burma. Further though invoice did not mention the import was on CIF basis, but subsequently .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lant submitted a certificate of origin dt. 19.3.1984 issued by M/s. Pharmaceutical Industries Corporation declaring the country of origin as Burma. The goods were transshipped through Singapore and a Certificate dt. 3.4.1984 issued by the Singapore Indian Chamber of Commerce certifying the goods to be of Burmese Origin was also submitted. In the letter certificate the exporter is shown as M/s. Transicom, Singapore who issued the invoice to the appellant. The audit seems to have raised the disput .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rity has pointed out the discrepancy in the name of the vessel appearing in the two certificates of origin. The certificate issued by PIC shown the name of vessel as MV HTONEYWA whereas the name of the vessel in the Bill of Entry is shown as vessel MV BINTANG HARPAN. On seeing the documents we find that there is no discrepancy. The Bill of Lading got issued by M/s. Transicom shows the following: Local Vessel M/V HTONEYWA From Rangoon (Berma) Ocean Vessel BINTING HARPAN Port of Loading Singapore .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.1984 whereas the invoice submitted with the Bill of Entry is issued by the exporter i.e. M/s. Transicom Burma and will naturally be of a later date i.e. on 28.3.1984. On proper appreciation of the documents as well as the fact that the notification No. 321/76 does not require the COO to be issued by any designated authority, in our view the two certificates of origin indicating the COO as Burma cannot be discarded. They must be the accepted and we do so. 5.2. The next issue is to whether the in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Singapore does not indicate the invoice number. We note that it indicates the name of the vessel, the number of drums, the weight, the L/C number? all these tally with the particulars in the Bill of Lading. It should not have been difficult for Revenue to co-relate such documents. Further we find that the departure date i.e. 28.3.1984 indicated in the COO issued at Singapore tallies with the date of invoice issued by M/s. Transicom. The adjudicating authority has also stated that whereas the CO .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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