9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 25,12,267/-. The appellants accordingly paid the duty on 02.05.2013. However, on 06.05.2013 the goods were re-examined again. The Revenue entertained a view that two of the items (battery bank and car charger) were with brand name „ROMOS‟ which was not declared and the classification and valuation of imported items were to be re-determined. On completion of the investigation, proceedings were initiated which resulted in original order dated 10.11.2014. The original authority re-determined the assessable value at Rs. 67,75,520/- with duty liability of Rs. 17,88,430/-. He confiscated the imported goods but allowed the same to be released with payment of redemption fine of Rs. 17,00,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, it cannot be alleged that the said brand name, which has no previous publicity or knowledge in India, would have affected the value of the product. Ld. Counsel did not contest the confiscation or the valuation of battery bank. 4. Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 6. We have examined the impugned order. It was recorded that the original order is cryptic and not addressing the issues in its entirety in as much as comprehensive finding in respect of the issues have not been recorded. Many judgments / decisions have been relied by the importer and none of them are discussed. Having recorded so, ld. Commissioner himself records a very cryptic finding as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... similar imported items. We note, non production of manufacturer invoice by itself cannot lead to rejection of the declared transaction value. Further, if the assessing officer is attributing reason that the brand goods will have additional value then the comparison should be with similar branded goods. We note that the NIBD data is for unbranded goods and that too for imports many months back from the date of present import or after many months of the said import. The contemporaneous value should be comparable in quality, volume, country of origin and many other parameters so that appropriate transaction value can be arrived at. We find no analyses of these issues either in the original order or in the first appellate order. The various is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
