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. Mars Plastic & Polymers Pvt. Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad

2016 (3) TMI 219 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Finalisation of the assessment of 13 Bills of Entry - Appellant imported Ceramic Tiles and filed 17 Bills of Entry out of which 13 Bills of Entry was assessed provisionally and 4 Bills of Entry were cleared after assessment to loaded value which was accepted by the appellant. After that the 13 Bills of Entry was finalised at the same rate as in the case of finally assessed 4 Bills of Entry and directed the appellant to pay differential duty but the appellant opposed it and produced contract in r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

icant to note that they have imported only 113x20 containers of Ceramic tiles from supplier but, as per contract they are supposed to import 60x20 containers per month. The contract does not indicate the Port of import for the consignment. The rate in the contract would not show whether it is FOB/ CIF basis. It is particularly noted that the certain size of tiles imported by the appellant are not tallied with the contract. Therefore, the contract is discarded and the price of contemporaneous imp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

imported Ceramic tiles classifiable under Customs Heading No. 69081090 of the Customs Tariff Act. They filed 17 Bills of Entry during the period from January 2005 to February 2006, out of which 13 Bills of Entry had been assessed provisionally as the appellant had not submitted original copy of the contract and duly attested certificate of origin as per Bangkok Agreement and invoice price appeared to be lower than the contemporaneous imported data. The other 4 Bills of Entry of the similar good .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

jected the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that non-filing of appeal in similar cases for the earlier 4 Bills of Entry would not bar them to file appeal in other Bills of Entry. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.K. Gangadharan vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin - 2008 (228) ELT 497 (SC). He further submits that the appellant produced the contract in respect of present 13 Bills of E .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

w failed to appreciate that the contract produced by the appellant, which cannot be discarded in arbitrary manner. 3. Learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He drew attention of the Bench to the relevant portion of the adjudication order. He submits that the adjudicating authority had examined the contract, which has no relation with the present imported goods. So, the department rightly taken the contemporaneous price as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assessment of 13 Bills of Entry during the period from January 2005 to February 2006. The assessing officer assessed the said 4 Bills of Entry after loading the value as per contemporaneous import data (NIDB Data) and the same was accepted by the appellant and clearance was affected on payment of duty. In the present appeal, the appellant produced contract. The adjudicating authority observed that no date has been mentioned on the contract nor any period of validity has been mentioned. The invoi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is clearly evident that both the authorities below, after detail discussion, discarded the contract as produced by the appellant. This fact was not refuted by the appellant at any stage. Hence, the adjudicating authority rightly adopted the price of contemporaneous imports at / around the time of import of impugned goods at higher value, as evident from 4 Bills of Entry. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the order of the lower authorities. 5. The learned Advocate strongly relied upon the d .....

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