TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ches (Wrist Watch, Logo -Adidas) 25,000 0.35 8,750.00 3. Calculator (CITIZEN) Model-CT-300) 2,000 0.65 1,300.00 4. Calculator (CITIZEN) Model-CT-300) 1,600 0.85 1,360.00 5. Calculator (CITIZEN) Model-CT-580) 10,860 1.00 10,860.00 6. Calculator (CITIZEN) Model-CT-600) 480 1.65 792.00 7 Calculator (CITIZEN) Model-CT-612) 480 1.85 888.00 8. Calculator SKD (Back Cover) (CITIZEN) (CT-500) 28,000 0.10 2,800.00 9. Calculator SKD (Front Panel W/PCB) (CITIZEN) (CT-500) 35,000 0.50 17,500.00 10. Calculator SKD (Back Cover Accessories) (CITIZEN) (CT-500) 35,000 0.13 4,550.00 11. Calculator Cover with manual for CT-500 (CITIZEN) 35,000 0.10 3,500.00 3. It was alleged by the Revenue that data of contemporaneous imports of identical/similar items as available in the database made available by the Directorate of Valuation, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "DOV") indicated that the declared values of the items imported in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... porter. Against this order the appellant has come to the appeal to this Tribunal. 6. Heard Shri S.K. Mehta, Advocate for the Appellant. He submitted that the appellant has imported 11 items as mentioned above. In respect of item Nos. 1 and 8 there were no dispute of any nature. Customs authorities disputed the valuation of the goods covered item Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 11. Imports under Sl. Nos. 9, 10 and 11 were in the SKD condition which on assembly along with battery could make a complete calculator. The appellant imported the goods from the Government Company of China. The Advocate further submitted that the DRI started an investigation in this case. They withheld the imported goods for a year and after 100% examination of the goods, DRI authorities released the bill of entry to the assessing authority for the purpose of assessment and release without making any case as to valuation or misdeclaration. However the assessing authority started a fresh investigation and raised a valuation dispute on the basis of data compiled by the Director of Valuation. When the hearing on valuation took place on 2-7-2004 where the duty calculation chart was relied upon by the Customs, the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as they are not in comparable quantity. In this regard he refers Tribunals order in A.D. Jayaveerapandia Nadar Sons reported in 2002 (148) E.L.T. 1190 (Tribunal) = 2003 (54) RLT Page 333. The Advocate submits that under the valuation rules it has been mentioned that lowest of the valuation found as and by way of contemporaneous import is to be taken. In DOV data supplied to them value shown in no. of cases is much less as compared to the value declared by them. The Advocate relies on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Eicher Tractors Ltd. case reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that transaction value cannot be rejected unless exception as of time, place of import or relationship is made in the order and in the absence of such allegation transaction value cannot be rejected. There is nothing in the order who shows application of exceptions provided under the Rule 4(1) of the Valuation Rules. In absence of such exception transaction cannot be rejected. The Tribunal has taken the similar view in the case of Radha V. Company reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. 810 and Cannon Steels (P) Ltd. reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. 972. The Advocate further submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Weights and Measures Act which require the importer to brand all the consumer goods before or at the time of import. The Commissioner of Customs had issued a circular that such branding could be done at port before clearance. We find that when model no. and brand are clearly visible on examination, no finding of misdeclaration can be arrived at was made conceal the same by writing unbranded in the bill of entry cannot be constitute on the part to conceal the identity of the goods. 10. We find that an examination of Customs clearance which is a part of procedure the brand engraved on the goods is clearly visible in these circumstances writing of unbranded in the bill of entry losses importance and cannot be termed as wilful misdeclearation on the part of importer so as to invite any penal action against them or confiscation of the goods in view of Tribunals decision referred to above. 11. As regards the valuation, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their judgment in Eicher Tractors Ltd. referred to above as held that transaction value cannot be rejected unless exception, as of time, place of import or relationship is made in the order and in absence of such allegation tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the seller and the buyer have no interest in the business of each other and the price is the sole consideration for the sale or offer for sale. In the present case neither has it been alleged nor has any material been produced to show that Mirah Exports and the foreign suppliers have any interest in the business of each other." 14. The Commissioner opinion that only 10% discount could have be given as against based upon his personnel view which does not carry any legal weightage and not upon any legal evidence or export opinion. 15. In A.D. Jayaveerapandia Nadar Sons [2002 (148) E.L.T. 1190 (Tribunal) = 2003 (54) RLT 333] CEGAT has held that : "Assessable value - Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 - Garlic - Transction Value - Comparable goods - Declared value of US$ 400 per MT enhanced to US$ 565 per MT on basis of one consignment of 22 MTs imported one month earlier - present import being of 1078.30 MTs out of ordered quantity of 1500 MTs, stray import of 22 MTs at higher price to be ignored as not being at the same commercial level (quantity) - lower transaction value for bulk purchase acceptable - appeal allowed." 16. In Kailash Enterprises - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 548 (Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transaction value - Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962. Valuation (Customs) - Transaction value - Rejection of - No allegation or finding that the invoice does not represent actual price at which the goods was sold - Enhancement of value not justified - Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962. - The ratio of Supreme Court judgment in Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CC [2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) that unless any of the exceptions contained in the proviso under Rule 4 (1) of Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988 is shown to apply, the transaction value must be accepted, will apply to the facts of the case." 18. In the present case we do not find any allegation of any relationship between buyer and as such in absence of price agreed between the two is acceptable is especially when there is no contemporaneous price of the quantity imported in this case. 19. It is well settled legal proposition that to adopt the value of the other goods the same should be contemporaneous in all respects. The quantity imported in the present case is much larger than given in the DOV data cannot be called contemporaneous import as their major lesser quantity than the made by the Appellant. 20. The allegation of under v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
