Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin Versus M/s. SMBJ Impex Pvt. Ltd., A.G. International, DCP Synthetics Pvt. Ltd.

2017 (11) TMI 496 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Misdeclaration of imported goods - Valuation - mixed lots of PU leather cloth fabrics - rejection of transaction value declared by the respondents - contemporaneous imports - Held that: - the declared value has been rejected on mere assumptions and presumptions. The department has not been able to adduce any cogent evidence for holding that the declared transaction value is not correct. The Commissioner (Appeals) in para 4.6 has rightly discussed that there is no allegation in the present case t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal Nos. C/135, 136 and 322/2009 - Final Order Nos. 42721-42723 / 2017 - Dated:- 6-11-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Appellant Shri B. Satish Sundar and Dr. S. Krishnanandh, Advocates for the Respondents ORDER Per Bench The issue involved in the above three appeals being the same as well as the facts being identical, the same were heard together .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ong with various incriminating documents. On scrutiny of the said laptop, it was found that mixed lots of PU leather cloth fabrics having different thickness varying from 0.6 mm to 1.5 mm were being imported but in majority of the import declarations, the thickness was declared to be lower and thus there was evasion of customs duty. Thus, the imports made by the respondents were brought within the scrutiny. The department after issuing show cause notice and after due process of law, rejected the .....

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 submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the enhancement of value mainly on three grounds:- (a) That there is no ground put forward by the department for rejecting the transaction value; (b) There is no allegation that the buyer is related to seller and therefore Rule 7A cannot be invoked without first excluding Rules 5 to 8 with valid reasons; (c) The enhancement of value is merely based on NIDB data. He submitted that the imports were taken up for scrutiny on the basis of DRI .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

0,000/- in each transaction / invoice and invoice in respect of credit sale did not indicate the full address of the customer. This created a doubt about the genuineness of sales transaction in respect of sales price. It was also noticed by the original authority that cash sales was for large amount and credit sales was without detail address of the customer, there is no scope to accept the contention of the respondent that the declared value is true and correct. At the same time, some of the im .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

unsel Shri B.Satish Sundar and Dr. S. Krishnanandh argued the matter. They strongly argued that the department has rejected the transaction value without any ground and the enhancement is done on the basis of NIDB data which has been held in various decisions to be not acceptable for enhancement of declared value. The ld. counsel submitted that on similar set of facts, in regard to import of PU Coated fabrics itself, the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Vs. DM Internati .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

be enhanced merely on the basis of NIDB data. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The ld. AR has vehemently argued that enhancement was on the basis of DRI Alert Circular and therefore there were reasons to believe that the declared value is not correct. On going through the facts of the case as well as the submissions made by both sides, the declared value has been rejected on mere assumptions and presumptions. The department has not been able to adduce any cogent evidence for holding that the declared tra .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version