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

2015 (5) TMI 962 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2015 (5) TMI 962 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2016 (331) E.L.T. 95 (Tri. - Del.) - Confiscation of goods - Enhancement of value - Penalty u/s 112 - Held that:- One of the persons whose opinion was sought gave the value which was even lower than the value declared by the appellant. The transaction value was sought to be rejected as per the Show Cause Notice essentially because the goods were alleged to be mis-declared in description thereof. Once the goods were held to have been correctly described by 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

s correct. It is a settled law that resort to the said Rules for revising the value of the imported goods can be had only after the assessing officer rejects the transaction value in terms of Rule 12 of the said Rules on account of having reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the declared value. The impugned order does not disclose any basis for any such reasonable doubt after having accepted the description of the goods to be correct. Thus, we do not find the upward revision of valu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1/2010 in terms of which 3.9 MT of goods were ordered to be mutilated, classified under Customs Tariff Heading 7204 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 ordered to be confiscated under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act 1962, redemption fine of ₹ 1,30,000/- imposed, the value enhanced upwards to US $ 37447.43 (C&F) from the declared value of US $ 26529.75, and penalty of ₹ 50,000/- levied under section 112 ibid. 2. The appellant had imported high-speed steel scrap and declared assessab .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ontended that once the goods were found to have been correctly described in the Bill of Entry, there was no basis for not accepting the declared value and there was also no ground for ordering mutilation. It is also contended that no basis has been given to reject the transaction, value and to revise the value upwards. 4. The Ld. D.R. reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. We have considered the contentions of both sides. We find that the adjudicating authority has accepted the declar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and fair and was also found to be in the price band of NIDB data. However we do not find any evidence in the impugned order whether the NIDB data relied upon was relating to the comparable quantity of identical or similar goods where the expression identical goods and similar goods have the meaning given in Rule 2 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods), Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). We find that one of the persons whose opinion was sought .....

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