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

2016 (9) TMI 173 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (9) TMI 173 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Valuation declared value accepted as transaction value - Rule 3(3)(b) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 Helukabel products rejection of transaction value due to fluctuating prices of the goods prices of similar/identical products - Held that: - the order dated 16.1.2008 was passed essentially on the ground that the importer was able to establish that the contemporaneous imports were at a price lower 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

e considered before accepting the transaction value under Rule 3(3)(b) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007- matter remanded to original authority appeal disposed off. - Appeal No. C/85456/13 - Order No. A/89532/16/CB - Dated:- 26-8-2016 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri Brajesh Pathak, Advocate for Appellant Shri M.K. Sarangi, Jt. Commissioner (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per Raju The appellant, M/s Helukabel India Pvt. Ltd., are a subsidiary company of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The said order was accepted in review proceedings by the Commissioner of Customs (Import). The order dated 16.1.2008 contains following observations as ground for passing the order: - M/s Helukabel India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (the importer) and M/s Helukabel GmbH (Germany) (the supplier) are related in terms of Rule 2(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. The transaction value be accepted under Rule 3(3)(b) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 by the 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

lant to the effect that there was no change in practice, again the transaction value was accepted on the following grounds: - I do not find any reason to interfere with the earlier order dated 16.1.2008 accepting the declared invoice value as transaction value under Rule 3(3)(b) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 for import by M/s Helukabel India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai from M/s Helukabel GmbH, Germany and their associate and subsidiary companies. Accordingly, I order to accept the declared invoice .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the imported goods under appropriate provisions of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. Revenue challenged this order before Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of Assistant Commissioner of Customs accepting the transaction value dated 9.2.2011 vide his order dated 1.11.2012 and departmental appeal was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before this Tribunal. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant argue .....

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