TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of appellant in valuation dispute under EOU Scheme</h1> <h3>Geetanjali Woollens Pvt. Ltd., Versus Commissioner of Customs (Export), Mumbai.</h3> Geetanjali Woollens Pvt. Ltd., Versus Commissioner of Customs (Export), Mumbai. - 2013 (290) E.L.T. 417 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues: Valuation of imported goods under EOU SchemeAnalysis:The judgment involves a dispute regarding the valuation of imported goods under the EOU Scheme. The appellant, a 100% EOU, imported mixed synthetic wool/(hosiery) fumigated worn clothing suitable for reclaiming fiber. The primary issue revolved around the declared unit price and valuation of the impugned goods. The appellant failed to produce the manufacturer's invoice and letter of credit, stating that the goods were textile scrap/rags intended for reclaiming fiber, not wearable clothing. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the declared value and determined a value of US $ 2.61 per Kg based on contemporaneous imports. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially set aside the enhancement of value, but the Revenue appealed, leading to remand proceedings. The Commissioner (Appeals) eventually confirmed the order-in-original, prompting the appellant's appeal to the Tribunal.The appellant argued that the goods were old and used clothing, making a manufacturer's invoice irrelevant, and no letter of credit was obtained as the goods were scraps. They contended that the adjudicating authority lacked evidence of contemporaneous imports and relied on bills of entry from another EOU, where the value was loaded without objection. The appellant, a regular importer of the goods, presented 50 bills of entry showing varying prices for similar goods during the impugned period. They proposed adopting the lowest price among these bills. Conversely, the Revenue supported the impugned order.Upon review, the Tribunal found that the imported goods were old and used worn clothing/rags meant for reclaiming, rendering a manufacturer's invoice unnecessary. As the goods were not imported under a letter of credit, its absence was justified. The Tribunal noted that the value was enhanced based on contemporaneous imports by another EOU, where the appellant's own import prices were not considered. Evidence showed contemporaneous imports of the impugned goods at 0.12 US $ per Kg, lower than the appellant's import price of 0.13 US $ per Kg. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the loading of value on the declared price unsustainable, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the availability of evidence on contemporaneous imports at a lower price and the inconsistency in valuing the goods based on similar imports by another party. The decision highlighted the importance of considering the appellant's own import prices and set aside the order enhancing the value of the imported goods, providing relief to the appellant.
TaxTMI 