TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 3-1-2001 and subsequent Bill of Entry, under Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Prices of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. (b) Fixed the value of imported tiles under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules as under :- (i) Tiles of 500 mm x 500 mm size - US $ 8.10 per Sq. Mtr CIF. (ii) Tiles of 600 mm x 600 mm size - US $ 10.20 per Sq. Mtr CIF. (iii) Tiles of 800 mm x 800 mm size - US $ 18.90 per Sq. Mtr. CIF (iv) Tiles of size 600 mm x 600 mm imported from Kea Group - US $ 10.68 per Sq. Mtr. CIF (c) Finalised the Bills of Entry on the basis of the values given herein above and confirming differential duty demands of Rs. 79,06,378/-, Rs. 26,78,073/- and Rs. 2,00,219/- togethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva for removal of the goods after finalising the Bill of Entry dated 26-9-2001 at the value declared by them. The Court directed the Customs authorities to adjudicate the case after issue of show cause notice. The case was adjudicated by the order dated 10-11-2001, by which the Commissioner directed provisional assessment at US $ 10 per Sq. Mtr. CIF. Pending DRI investigation, another Writ Petition was filed by the importers; the Court allowed them to clear the goods on payment of duty on the declared value on executing PD Bond for the entire differential duty calculated @ US $ 10 per Sq. Mtr. and on furnishing a bank guarantee for 25% of the differential duty. The DRI was directed to complete the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in their invoices and packing list prior to October, 2001, no such number was mentioned. The importer did not furnish catalogue of the manufacturer. The DRI obtained the catalogue from which it was observed that the manufacturer was manufacturing different types of tiles. The invoices produced by the appellants indicated uniform price for each series irrespective of grade of the tiles, while the sales invoices of the importer showed that those tiles were being sold at different prices. The veracity of the declared value was doubted by the Customs authorities for the reason inter alia that the importers had not produced the manufacturer's invoice, that the relationship between the importer and M/s. Noble Electronics (Suppliers of the tiles) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f tiles of this size will be 4.4 US $. (The appellants declared the price 6.78 US $) For 500 mm x 500 mm sized tiles the manufacturer has certified that price per piece 7 RMB. One piece is 0.25 Sq. Mtr and thus the value of one Sq. Mtr is 28 RMB. Taking the exchange rate as above, the rate of one Sq. Mtr. of tiles of this size is 3.5 US $ (while the appellants declared 5.60 US $), (b) Commercial invoice of M/s. Noble Electronics, Hong Kong from whom the tiles were purchased. (Manufacturers in China cannot export directly but have to route exports through Government approved exporter). Since M/s. Noble Electronics, the seller was based in Hong Kong, goods were sold through Textile Import and Export Company of Guangdong, China, which is an ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants. Regarding the order placed with the M/s. Keda Group (Hong Kong) for 600 x 600 mm sized tiles @ US $ 3.73 per piece, the appellants, contention that this price was not correct and amendment in the order was carried out vide purchase order amendment dated 5-8-2001 amending the price to US $ 3.725 is tenable. 7. The contention of the appellants that the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 have not been followed in seriatim and that Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules has been invoked directly, which is not permissible also requires acceptance in the light of the ratio of the Tribunal's order in Nina Chaka Pvt. Ltd., [2004 (163) E.L.T. 464]. We also note that, no special circumstances has specifically stated in Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
