Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (11) TMI 812 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (11) TMI 812 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Rejection of declared value - overvaluation of imported goods - ‘beverages/carbonated soft drinks - SVB - Held that: - Settled law requires acceptance of declared value as transaction value under rule 4 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 and rule 3 permits, in the event of sufficient ground for rejection of declared value, adoption of revised value but in accordance with sequential application of rules 5 to 8. - .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mnibus reference to rule 9 in the order of original authority which appears to have been concurred with by the first appellate authority without comprehending the oddity of an enhancement apparently under rule 8 with reference to rule 9 which, as even the most casual perusal of the Rules would demonstrate, as applicable only when the declared value is not rejected but is adjusted for the specific circumstances enumerated therein - The two proceedings leading to this appeal before us is a patheti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

imports by 20% over the declared value and such loading having been upheld by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), JNCH, Mumbai - II vide order-in-appeal no. 16/2005 (JNCH) dated 27th January, is before us with a prayer to set aside the impugned order. 2. From the facts on record, it appears that two bills of entry dated 25th January 2000 and 11th March 2000 were filed for import of beverages/carbonated soft drinks which were referred to Special Valuation Branch as the importer and exporter appea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nal hearings scheduled on 17th, 20th and 26th July 2000; that based on records, including declaration of relationship in the bill of entry, the original authority, having already placed importer on notice that value would be enhanced by 20%, rejected the transaction value and, there being no evidence to support the declared value as approximating the transaction value, went ahead with the proposed enhancement. The first appellate authority noticed the failure on the part of the importer to respo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

authority could not be responded to in the absence of reference to any bill of entry, the enhancement of twenty percent is without any basis, that they were not related to the supplier, that the declared value was the price at which goods were supplied by the foreign party, and that there is no reference to bill of entry in the order of enhancement. Learned Counsel submitted a number of judgements pertaining to valuation including that of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Eicher Tractors Ltd v. Comm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted by Learned Authorised Representative has been rendered in the context of a declared relationship between the importer and supplier of the goods. In that context, it was observed: 13. Relationship between supplier and importer only calls for investigation and a burden on the importer to furnish information as may be called for by the investigating officers. There may also be burden on the importer to prove that the relationship has affected the price… 6. We are entirely in agreement wi .....

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 is ample evidence that the price has been influenced by the relationship, we do not find even a phrase that describes the nature of the relationship; and in the absence of any response from the importer, we find it queer that the Commissioner (Appeals) could assert that price was so influenced. 8. On the contrary, we fail to perceive any relationship between the importers, a partnership firm, and M/s D&F Marketing, Inc of New Jersey, USA. The questionnaire of 1st February 2000 fails to all .....

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