9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le value is liable to be enhanced. 2. Shri Sudhir Malhotra, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants had imported heavy melting scrap other than re-rollable scrap, stainless steel or hot-rolled steel from M/s. Scrap Mould International Corpn. Ltd., Dubai and sought clearance of the same at concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 17/2001-Cus., dated 1-3-2001 or Notification No. 21/02, dated 1-3-2002; that on examination by the Customs Officers in the presence of the independent witness and authorised representative of the appellants, the impugned goods were found to be defective/secondary sheets of iron and steel, hot and cold re-rolled mixed together, of varying thickness width and length; that Shri J.S. Oberoi, Chartered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITC restriction has been laid down therein. He finally submitted that the price have been loaded without any evidence of contemporaneous import or any evidence on record to substantiate that there was undervaluation of the goods; that the goods were imported at arms length and prices were sole consideration; that Shri J.S. Oberoi has opined rate of HR Sheets/cuts and CR sheets/cuts at Rs. 11.50 per Kg. and Rs. 12.50 per Kg. respectively; that Chartered Accountant is not expert for quoting price of the imported goods he being a technical man; that even assuming the price quoted by him are correct, the sale prices are market prices inclusive of duty and other expenses which require to be deducted to arrive at CIF price; that moreover, Adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Customs, New Delhi - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 206 (Tri.), wherein it has been held that once the charge was not contested before Adjudicating Authority, plea regarding same could not be raised before the Appellate Tribunal. Finally, learned Senior Departmental Representative submitted that as the goods have been misdeclared, the value shown in the invoice cannot be termed as corresponding to the goods and that accordingly the Commissioner was justified in enhancing the value. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The Chartered Engineer, Shri J.S. Oberoi, who has examined the goods has clearly opined in respect of imported goods covered under both the impugned orders that the material received is in the form of sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, we agree with the learned Advocate that no material or evidence has been brought on record to show that the prices declared by the appellants are not correct price or these have been undervalued. As per Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, the transaction value has to be accepted as assessable value unless and until one of the ingredients mentioned in sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 is present. We observe from the impugned order that the Commissioner has enhanced the value only on the ground that the goods were misdeclared and therefore, the price mentioned in invoice does not correspond to the goods. The Revenue has thus not succeeded in establishing that the prices were undervalued by the appellants. We, therefore, set aside the enhan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
