TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudication order dated 1-11-2001 of Commissioner of Customs, Tuglakabad which confiscated two consignments imported by the appellants, under Section 111(d), (1), (m), (o) of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods had been imported in two containers and their clearance had been sought under bills of entry numbers 3243 and 3244, dated 18-12-2000. The confiscation has been ordered on the ground that the description of the goods as well as their value had been misdeclared in the import documents. With regard to misdeclaration of description the finding is that goods had been declared as parts of telephones, while, in fact, the goods under import were telephone instruments. In respect of value, the finding is that the total assessable value of the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cuments. On the valuation of the goods it is the appellant's submission that the prices declared in the import invoices and the bills of entries represented transaction values. They have contented that no evidence has been produced by the customs authorities to cast any doubt on the correctness of the transaction values. Their final submission on the valuation is that as the goods were for export production and exempt from customs duty, their valuation is of no revenue implication. During the hearing of the appeal, it has also been pointed out that the goods imported under bill of entry No. 3244/00 have already been re-exported under shipping bill 1758/2000 dated 3-4-2000 and the goods imported under the other bill of entry were also due fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n exempt under relevant customs Notification. In-fact Notification No. 133/94-Cus., dated 22-6-1994 specifically mentioned goods imported for repair, reconditioning, testing calibration quality improvements, up-gradation of technology and re-engineering activities. All the goods imported in bulk packs by the appellants under the two bills of entries were required to be further processed before they could be offered in sale as telephone sets. These operations may, as well be, as insignificant as testing and re-packing them. In the present case the appellant has rightly pointed out that many processes are required to be carried out before they could be re-exported as telephone instruments. That exemption granted for manufacturing activities i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed goods to supposedly similar goods under import. The appellant has strongly contested the valuation on the ground that in the absence of any reason to discard the transaction value, it was not permissible at all to undertake a valuation of the goods on the basis of comparable inputs. Valuation adopted has also been faulted on the ground that comparison has not been made with the import of identical goods tallying in regard to their models, level of trade etc. [For many reasons]. We do not consider this to be a fit case for going into the correctness of the valuation adopted in the impugned order. The goods had been imported for re-export. What is of relevance in such a situation is value addition at the time of export. We note that goods, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
