TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Entry No. 103522, dated 9-4-96 the Customs authorities stumbled upon a Letter of Credit (L/C) established by the said trading company in favour of M/s. China Plastic Company, Taiwan, for US $ 55,570 as against the price of US $ 29,924.10 reflected in the invoice presented by the appellant along with the corresponding Bill of Entry. 2.2 In respect of B/E 110097, dated 22-10-96, as against the declared value of US $ 27,822.05, the authorities noticed that the said goods were insured by the supplier for US $ 56,589.01. Similar evidence of insurance value of US $ 52,982.18 against the declared value of US $ 24,219.25 was noticed. 2.3 It has also been alleged that the appellants furnished some documents claiming these to be the actual in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said 8 B/Es based on the actual value derived from the recovered L/C for the first B/E. In short basis for value enhancement was two-fold :- (i) Based on the value noted in the recovered L/C (For 8 B/Es). (ii) Based on the amount at which the supplier had insured the goods (For 2 B/Es). 3.1 The appellants made several submissions to refute the allegations and also produced the evidence of contemporary import from the same ICD, showing imports at prices comparable with the price declared by the appellants. But these grounds were not considered and the impugned order came to be passed against the appellants. 3.2 In the instant appeal, those very points are reiterated by the ld. Counsel for the appellants. Ld. DR plea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d supplies or whether a part of it was adjusted against subsequent supplies. The adjudication order proceeds to accept the price mentioned in the L/C as the correct price in respect of goods covered by 8 B/Es. In the face of the contemporary correspondence between the appellants and the suppliers, whereby ongoing negotiation of price between buyer and seller is established and the genuineness of this correspondence has not even been doubted, the adoption of price as shown in the L/C is totally without the authority of law. It is more so for the reason that, the department in the impugned order, has not alleged even a single import at the price reflected in the said L/C, whereas there is a supplier's commitment to adjust the excess payment r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t spell out as to under which rule the value is determined, and the Ld. DR could not throw any light on this aspect, it appears to have been done under the residual rule viz. Rule 8. Determination of value under Rule 8 cannot be done without exhausting the provisions contained in the earlier rules, especially Rules 5 and 6 dealing with valuation based on the value of identical goods (Rule 5) and similar goods (Rule 6). When the date for import of identical goods and similar goods was available in the ICD (even the appellants furnished such data) as well as other customs formation, taking recourse to valuation, as adopted in the impugned order is totally against the provisions contained in the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988. The impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
