TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant has not been able to give proper accountal of such difference(s) in the prevailing cost of production , transportation charges, existing tax structure for export etc. during the relevant period - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. C/624/2010-CU (DB) - Final Order No. 50151/2017 - Dated:- 6-1-2017 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) Ms. Asmita Nayak, Advocate - for the appellant Shri K. Poddar, D.R. - for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok K. Arya The appellant viz. Shri T. Vinayak Ravi Reddy is in appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 29.7.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Customs (Appeals), whereunder order-in-original dated 19.11.2009 passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected the declared value of the appellant under the same Rule. (iv) The value declared by the appellant in the invoice is the true and correct transaction value and merits acceptance as per provisions of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 3 and Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation (DPIG) Rules, 2007 inasmuch as the import was a valid transaction between both the parties and did not fall under any of the exceptions stipulated in Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation (DPIG) Rules, 2007. (v) No evidence produced by the department that any amount over and above the invoice value has been either directly or indirectly remitted to the manufacturer i.e. M/s Audi AG, Germany and the onus to prove under valuation is on the Depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st of production, transportation charges, existing tax structure for export. However, the appellant has not been able to give proper accountal of such difference(s) in the prevailing cost of production , transportation charges, existing tax structure for export etc. during the relevant period. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order in its paras 9 and 10 observes as under: 9. It is seen that the adjudicating authority had found that an identical car had been imported vide Bill of Entry No. 442617 dated 6.5.2009 at a declared value of Euro 1,15,212.99 CIF from the same supplier, which was substantially higher than the declared value for the impugned car. Therefore, in terms of Explanation (iii)(a) of Rule 12 of the Customs Valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned car. There was no explanation to the difference. Appellant submitted another letter dated 16.9.2009 from the supplier stating that the price of two similar cars models could differ based on optional equipment fitted on the cars. It was also stated by the supplir that the difference in ex-works price of particular AUDI car was subject to the prevailing cost of production, transportation charges, existing tax structure for export, fluctuation in exchange rate, in addition to the basic price of the car fixed by AUDI AG from time to time. But no factual account of such difference in the prevailing (cost) of production, transportation charges, existing tax structure for export, fluctuation in exchange rate during the period May 2009 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
