9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rndoor, Head to Ballast (Lighting equipment for studios)". The country of Origin of the goods was declared as 'Germany'. The unit price was declared as EUR 3505/00 per set (C&F) based on the invoice No.22075A dated by M/s.Cine Equipment Pte Ltd. Singapore, for a total consideration of Euro 35050 (C&F). On a reasonable doubt that the goods might have been undervalued the BE was taken for investigation by Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB). Based on their investigation they arrived the value of the goods at EURO 7800 (CIF) per set Hence a show cause notice was issued to the importer and after diligently following the procedures laid down for adjudging the case and adhering to the principle of natural justice, the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the goods is also different. In the above circumstances the rejection of the value by the lower authority is contrary to the provisions of the Valuation Rules. e) The appellant further submit that the lower authority held against the appellant for non-production of manufacturer's price list. The lower authority ought to have appreciated that in International practice, such matters are kept confidential and many a times these are not declared publicly for reasons of competition in the trade. f) That the lower authority's reliance on the number of additional accessories cannot be the ground for rejection of price declared by the appellant. g) That sole evidence i.e.Euro 7800 in this case and no other evidences to rebut the tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess the genuineness of the invoice has been questioned - Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Mahalakshmi Gems, reported in 2008 (231) ELT 198 (SC). Transaction value cannot be rejected in the absence of any evidence to show that the appellants had paid any amount higher than the invoice price - Brij Plywood Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 2006 (198) ELT 289 (Tri.Bang). l) That the lower authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant. The appellant contended that the case relates to only rejection of value and hence there cannot be alleged mis-declaration and subsequent imposing of penalty. m) That the lower authority's main contention of rejection of value is there cannot be vast differ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons and concessions from the manufacturer's website price and have fairly arrived at the price EURO 7800 per set. He makes a reference to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay Vs. M/s. Shibani Engineering Systems reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T.453 (S.C.), wherein, the transaction value found to be ridiculous law and totally unrealistic, was held as not proper. He accordingly prays for rejection of the appeal. 6. After considering the submissions made by both sides, we find that the dispute relates to the valuation of the goods imported by the appellants. The enhancement stand done by the lower authorities only on the ground of contemporaneous imports, without first rejecting the transaction val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
