TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f market enquiry conducted by the Revenue - Held that:- 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. The Revenue has failed to give concrete evidence for mis-declaration of the goods, in that circumstance, the assessable value of the imported goods cannot be enhanced - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/53686/2015-Ex - A/62327/2018-CU[DB] - Dated:- 23-3-2018 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods were found to be mis-declared as branded belts and other belts and buckles of superior quality, it appeared that the declared value did not represent the true transaction value and could not be accepted. The same is liable to be rejected under Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and needed to be re-determined by following sequentially Rule 4 to Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules. Market enquiry was conducted by the officers of SIIB branch under Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules to ascertain the wholesale price of the PU Belts with Buckles, Wallets and Assorted Buckles. Since the appellant had imported Belts of Tuffline brand, PU Belt with Buckle (Tuff Line Brand), earlier bill of entry No.9099570 dated 22.01.2013 which was assessed @ 32 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Boss were also required by the SIIB branch to verify the genuineness of the brands of the goods found during examination. The authorized representatives of right holders of Levis and Boss brands inspected the goods and reported that the goods which have been imported under the impugned mark are mis-branded. On the basis of above investigation, a show cause notice was issued to enhance the value of the imported goods and confiscated the branded goods and to impose redemption fine and penalty was also imposed. 3. The matter was adjudicated, quantity of warehoused goods and branded goods absolutely confiscated, remaining goods were released on payment of redemption fine and penalty was also imposed against the said order, the appellant is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s examination and therefore, this evidence cannot be relied upon. It is further submitted that Rule 7 cannot be applied in absence of specific information as per note to Rule 7 and specially when there is no finding as to from where the figures has been arrived at for relying deductions under Rule 7. The adjudicating authority has relied upon the judgment in the case of Maya Mahal Industries vs. CCE reported in 1995 (80) ELT 118 and M/s. Popular Carpet Inds. Vs. CC reported in 1996 (84) ELT 244 for upholding the market enquiry to be applicable despite the fact that none turned up for cross examination is contrary to law as laid down by Hon ble High Court in the case of Vasudev Garg vs. CC reported in 2013 (294) ELT 353 (Del.). Therefore, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
