TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d persons and there is no evidence on record that any amount in excess of what has been declared by the appellant has been repatriated by the appellants. Thus there is no ground for rejecting the transaction value. Appellant has been importing the same goods at the declared/invoice value and no objection was raised for those contemporary imports of the appellant. There is also no evidence on record whether contemporary imports relied upon by the department are Identical goods or similar goods as defined in Rule 1(c) & 1 (e ) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Imported goods) Rules 1988. There is thus no reason to doubt the declared/invoice value paid by the appellant - enhancement of assessable value in the present proceedings is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3/2007 confiscated 312.550 Kgs. of Crystal beads valued at ₹ 15,62,750/- (CIF) and 10 Kgs. of marquise shaped glass with coating on its back (valued at ₹ 66,600/- CIF) under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 imported by the appellant and allowed redemption on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 4,00,000/-. A penalty of ₹ 2.00 Lakh was also imposed by the Adjudicating authority on the appellant under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Shri A.K. Mehta (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that though assessable value of the imported glass beads/Chattan has been enhanced by both the lower authorities but duty demand of ₹ 5,98,736/- under para-19 of the show cause notice dated 31/12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue argued that the value of the goods imported by the appellant has been enhanced by the lower authorities as suggested by M/s. Swrouski, the report of an authorised valuer of the Govt. of India after verification of the representative samples of imported goods and the contemporary imports made at Chennai. Learned A.R. strongly defended the order passed by the first appellate authority. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present proceedings is whether enhancement in declared value has been correctly made and upheld by the lower authorities with respect to glass beads/Chattons imported by the appellant. It is observed rom the case records that appellant has imported same goods before and after th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rules which have been framed are the Customs, Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. The rules came into force on 16th August, 1988. Under Rule 3(i) the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value . Transaction value ' has been defined in Rule 2(f) as meaning the value determined in accordance with Rule 4. Rule 4(1) in turn states : 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. 8. Reading Rule 3(i) and Rule 4(1) together, it is clear that a mandate has been cast on the authorities to accept the price actually paid or payable for the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue read in conjunction with the word payable in Rule 4(1) allows determination of the ordinary international value of the goods to be ascertained on the basis of data other than the price actually paid for the goods. This, according to the respondent, would be in keeping with the overriding effect of Section 14(1). We cannot agree. 11. It is true that the Rules are framed under Section 14(1A) and are subject to the conditions in Section 14(1). Rule 4 is in fact directly relatable to Section 14(1). Both Section 14(1) and Rule 4 provide that the price paid by an importer to the vendor in the ordinary course of commerce shall be taken to be the value in the absence of any of the special circumstances indicated in Section 14(1) and parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether contemporary imports relied upon by the department are Identical goods or similar goods as defined in Rule 1(c) 1 (e ) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Imported goods) Rules 1988. There is thus no reason to doubt the declared/invoice value paid by the appellant in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court. Accordingly it is held that enhancement of assessable value in the present proceedings is arbitrary and not justified. Surprisingly adjudicating authority has not confirmed the demand inspite of loading the assessable value. 5. So far as confiscation of imported goods and imposition of penalty is concerned it is observed that appellant has declared the same description what is given in the invoice/customs document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
