Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (6) TMI 67

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ttributing the said inadvertent mistake to human error, we hold that there was no mis-declaration in respect of the quantum of the fabrics, in as much as the total number of rolls match with the quantity imported by the appellant. Enhancement of value - Held that:- in the present case, it is found that there is neither any allegation nor any evidence produced by the Revenue to suspect the correctness of the transaction value. If that be so, the transaction value has to be accepted as the correct assessable value. Further, it is again well settled that NIDB data cannot be adopted as a ground for enhancement of the value. As such in the absence of any other evidence on record, we find no merits in the Revenue’s stand. However, it stand .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... kness at the declared value and filed a bill of entry for clearance of the same. The value declared in respect of PU Leather Cloth of 0.5 mm thickness was USD 0.80 per meter and the value declared for the said goods of 0.9 mm thickness was USD 1.50 per meter. The bill of entry filed by the appellant was assessed on second check basis with 10% examination order as per declaration made by the appellant. The value of PU Leather Cloth of 0.5 mm thickness was enhanced to 0.90 USD per meter and of thickness 0.9 mm was enhanced to UDS 1.90 meter from the declared invoice value of 0.80 USD and 1.50 USD respectively. The same was done on the basis of contemporaneous import data. 2. Thereafter, the goods were examined on 100% examination basis an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llant took a categorical stand that there was interchange of two types of fabrics while mentioning the total number of rolls. It was admitted by the importer that 127 rolls, which have been declared as of thickness 0.9 mm, were, in fact, of 0.5 mm and the 293 rolls declared as 0.5 mm thickness were of 0.9 mm. They contended that the said declaration stands made by them based upon the invoice of the foreign supplier and it seems that there was some mistake on the part of sender of the goods. As regards enhancement, they contended that the same is based upon the NIDB data, which has been held to be not sufficient for such enhancements, by various decisions of the higher courts. They contended that in the absence of any evidence to show that t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g benefit of doubt to the appellant has also attributing the said inadvertent mistake to human error, we hold that there was no mis-declaration in respect of the quantum of the fabrics, in as much as the total number of rolls match with the quantity imported by the appellant. 8. As regards valuation, it is seen that 127 rolls were of 5 mm thickness with the declared value of USD 0.80 per meter. The same was enhanced by the Revenue on first check basis to 0.90 USD per meter. The balance 293 rolls were of 0.9 mm at the declared value of USD 1.50 per meter. The same was enhanced to USD 1.90 in the first check examination. The appellants are not aggrieved with the said enhancement done on the first check basis and had taken no appellate act .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... SIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE reported in 2015 (325) E.L.T. 445 (S.C.) 11. It is well settled law that transaction values are required to be accepted unless the same are first discarded on the basis of sufficient evidences. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Vishakhapatnam Versus Aggarwal Industries Ltd. reported in 2011 E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) has observed that reasons to doubt about truth or accuracy of the declared value does not mean a reason to suspect. Mere suspicion upon the correctness of the invoice produced by an importer is not sufficient to reject it as evidences of the value of the imported goods. In the present case, we find that there is neither any allegation nor any evidence produced by the Reven .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates