TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 1022X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jected and the same was required to be accepted and cited large number of judgments. However, the same was not accepted by the authorities below and proceeded to value the goods in terms of Board's Circular. The matter was challenged before the Commissioner on the ground that the issue is covered by the Tribunal ruling which latter was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd., Haryana vs. CC, Mumbai - 2001 (1) SCC 315. 2. The learned Counsel also submitted that the authority had followed the ruling of Gajra Bewel Gears vs. CC, Mumbai - 2000 (115) ELT 612 (SC) which was not a detailed judgment and proceeded only to confirm the Tribunal ruling at the admission stage. They relied on large number of judgments. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms duty with CVD 16% (8460.00) and SAD 4%. The authority-in-original, viz., the Dy. Commissioner of Customs, rejected the declared value/transaction value by observing thus: ......Hence the foremost requirement for accepting the transaction value/invoice price under Section 4 that it should be the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale, is not fulfilled in this case. The authority-in-original then proceeded to examine the applicability of Rules 5 to 8 sequentially in order to determine the transaction value/assessable value of the goods and determined the assessable value at ₹ 1,35,90,307.54 in FOB terms in terms of Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of section 14 read with Rule 4 ibid. The Commissioner thus held that the question of rejection of the transaction value and determining the value under any of the rules subsequent to Rule 4 will not arise at all. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the appellate authority, the Department went in appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal'). The Member (Judicial) by his order dated 29 July 2002 rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue and Member (Technical) by his order dated 07 August 2002 allowed the appeal. In the light of the difference of opinion, the matter was placed before a third member of the Tribunal who allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the first ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y through Rules 5 to 8 of the Rules. Rule 4 provides that the transaction value of imported goods shall be the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India , adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of these rules. As per sub-rule (2) of the said Rule the transaction value of imported goods under sub-rule (1) shall be accepted subject to the exceptions provided therein. Admittedly Rule 9 of the Rules is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case of Eicher Tractors (supra) which has been relied upon by the Mr. Vellapally appearing for the assessee as also by the first appellate authority, it has been held that the transaction value has to be accepted subject to the exceptio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods or similar goods at a higher price at around the same time. Unless the evidence is gathered in that regard, the question of importing section 14(1A) does not arise. In the absence of such evidence, invoice price has to be accepted as the transaction value. Invoice is the evidence of value. Casting suspicion on invoice produced by the importer is not sufficient to reject it as evidence of value of imported goods. Undervaluation has to be proved. If the charge of undervaluation cannot be supported either by evidence or information about comparable imports, the benefit of doubt must go to the importer. If the department wants to allege undervaluation, it must make detailed inquiries, collect material and also adequate evidence......... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
