9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... price declared by the appellant was USD 20.00 per roll and the appellant classified the goods under CTH 39269990 and the assessable value of goods works out to be Rs. 5,82,992.00 as per appellant's declaration. 2.1 The goods were examined by the department under first check to ascertain the quality & value of the goods. During the course of examination, it was found that the description of the goods as 'Acrylic Sheeting Advertisement Grade 3200' declared by the appellant does not appear to be correct rather the goods actually found is known as "Reflective Sheet Adhesive Type/Acrylic Reflective Sheet" and the value of the goods declared by the appellant was also found very low. 2.2 A letter dated 11/11/2011 was issued to the appellant asking therein to submit the manufacturer's catalogue/literature, analysis/composition certificate, manufacturer price list and the end use in respect of the goods imported. The appellant vide their letter dated 21st December, 2011 submitted their reply and stated that the goods imported by them is as per the declaration. The appellant also stated that "the description, technical particulars and dimensions are duly mentioned on the packages hence t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er roll. 2.6 On the reasonable belief that the goods imported vide Bill of Entry No.007353 dated 29.09.2011 have been mis declared in terms of description as well as in terms of value, and are liable to confiscation in terms of Section 111 (d), (f) & (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, the said goods were seized under Section 110 of the Act, ibid vide Panchnama dated 27.01.2012 by the department. Therefore, the value of the said goods was reportedly liable to be rejected under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of value of imported Goods) Rules, 2007. The vaue was to be re-determined under Rule 4/Rule 5 of the CVR, 2007, as per which the assessable value worked out to Rs. 17,68,652/- instead of the Rs. 5,82,992/- declared by the appellant. 2.7 It was also alleged that the appellant had also imported six consignments of same item in the past by misdeclaring the actual description of goods and undervaluing the same, when compared to the identical/similar goods imported by M/s Auto Universe (supra). The value of the said goods were also re-determined by the adjudicating authority to Rs. 1,05,17,870/- and duty leviable worked out to Rs. 28,23,913/- instead of Rs. 16,23,038/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported by M/s Auto Universe in terms of Rule 2 (f) of CVR, 2007 made for the purpose and the value of the imported goods declared by the importer is liable for rejection in terms of Rule 12 of CVR, 2007 and required to be re-determined under Rule 5 of the said Rules. (iii) Whether the value of goods earlier imported and already cleared, can be rejected in terms of Rule 12 of CVR, 2007 and can be re-determined under Rule 5 of the said Rules. 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) have further observed that the impugned consignment- the description is made as "TM 3200 series: Advertisement Grade Acrylic Type", with other details. The impugned order itself mentioned that during the course of examination by the customs officer, it was found that the goods were declared by the appellant as "Acrylic Sheeting Advertisement Grade 3200". Thus, so far as declaration in respect of the description of the imported goods is concerned which was made by the importer in the bill of entry, I find that it was correctly declared by the appellant. It is only the view of the Department that description of the goods, as declared by the importer is not correct, rather the goods actually imported are know ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Universe and only these two reasons are sufficient for rejecting the value of the impugned goods. Further, held that the definition of similar goods with respect to the goods of the two parties is not satisfied, and hence the adjudicating authority has erred while comparing the quantity of imported goods in both the cases, because the total quantity, including past 6 consignments of the goods imported by respondent is much more than the goods imported by M/s Auto Universe. Further, it was observed that there is no discussion in the order that how the goods are similar or they have similar characteristics and like component materials which enable them to perform the same function. The learned Commissioner further observed that the goods imported by the respondent are of Grade TM3200 whereas the goods imported by M/s Auto component is of Grade TM3200 AB. The suffix AB, indicates additional features and quality attributes imparted on the goods over and above the standard parameters of TM3200 series. Thus, the comparison is patently erroneous. Further, in the statement of proprietor of M/s Jai Durga had stated that they are the traders of Acrylic Sheeting and other related items, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
