9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f goods including PU Belts, Walets, Buckles etc. of Chinese Origin. The appellant filed bill of entry No.9436117 dated 27.2.2013 for home consumption for the clearance of goods declared as "PU Belt with Buckle" @ 1.5 USD per Dozen, Cotton Belt with Buckle @ 1.0 USD per Dozen, "Assorted Buckle"@ 0.66 USD per Dozen and "Wallet"@ 2.0 USD per Dozen. The net quantity of the goods imported declared as 4035 Dozens, 260 Dozens, 10540.50 Dozens and 377.50 Dozen respectively and gross weight as 23120.00 kgs. The total invoice value declared was 14024.23 USD (C&F) and total declared assessable value was Rs. 7,86,378/-. 3. As there was dispute with regard to the valuation of the imported goods, the appellant for substitution of bill of entry for home ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le thereon, expenses like clearing agent charges, port charges, storage charges, transportation, establishment cost etc. margin of profit for whole seller and importer, sale tax/VAT etc. The statement of Shri Paramjeet Singh Khurana, Proprietor of the appellant was recorded wherein he stated that the belts and wallets are made up of PU leather and cotton and the buckles are made up of PU leather and cotton and the buckles are made up of zinc, mild steel and plasticises; that the brand Zia, HZ, Tuff Line and Danmaneao are unpopular brands; that the belts of four popular brand i.e. Levis, Versace, Boss and Armani are not genuine and are made of PU leather only; that belts of popular brands have been inadvertently imported and he is ready to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, on that ground, the value cannot be enhanced. It is further submitted that the demand is based on surmises conjectures as none of the persons who allegedly indicated the price turned up for cross examination. Hence the value proposed by the department cannot be accepted. It is further submitted that the order of the appellant authority holding the value could not be determined in terms of Rule 4 to 6 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and the same is required to be re-determined under Rule 7 by conducting independent market enquiry. The appellant demonstrated during the personal hearing that the said market enquiry was sham and it could not be relied upon as firstly it was conducted at the back of the appellant without any info ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required to be accepted. Therefore, in the earlier import wherein the Revenue sought to enhance the value has already been set aside by this Tribunal, therefore, the same cannot be the ground for enhancing the value, the import made in question. Another reason for enhancing the value is the market enquiry conducted by the Revenue. Admittedly, it was conducted at the back of the appellant without informing the appellant and secondly on the face of it the market enquiry seems to be of a fabricated one as it was neither obtained from any dealer, distributor and these persons did not come forward for cross examination and therefore, this evidence cannot be relied upon to enhance the value of imported goods. and In view of the decision of Hon'bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
