TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and found that the actual weight of the Cargo is 25.050 MTs instead of 20 MTs declared by the appellant. The consignment was there upon seized but was released provisionally on execution of a bond. At the time of clearance the appellant paid the differential duty involved on the 5MTs. It should be mentioned that the value as declared was also enhanced by the department while re-assessing the goods on the basis of actual weight found during investigation. Thus in so far as the copper scrap is concerned the Commissioner enhanced the value of the consignment and confiscated it for misdeclarartion of quantities. 2.The appellant also imported a consignment of lead scrap and ingots from the same overseas suppliers. No bill of entry was howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. On actual weighment it was found that the quantity is more by 5.050 MTs. In a case where the material particulars given in the invoice and bill of entry do not tally with the Cargo under import (in this case the weight does not tally) invoice value can be rejected. The Commissioner therefore rejected the declared value and sought to arrive at the value by adopting the prices prescribed in LME. Normally, declared value cannot be rejected without a valid ground stated in Rule 4(2) of the Valuation Rules. But in this case we find that the goods are mis-declared. Once that happens the declared value can be rejected and the value could be arrived at in accordance with the Valuation Rules. The Commissioner adopted Rule 8 (The residuary method) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 27 and odd MTs whereas the invoice should only 20MTs. While determining the value of the consignment the Commissioner rejected the value shown in the dubious invoice and determined the value as per LME prices. When the import is made in contravention of import policy they are liable to confiscation. The value of such consignment has to be done. The Commissioner rejected the value shown in the invoice possession of the importer because the quantity shown in the invoice does not tally with the weight of the consignment. He therefore determined the value of the consignment under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules. We uphold this finding in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case. 8.The Commissioner also confiscated the consignment on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
