Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1998 (9) TMI 267

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as D.C. Micro Motors of Voltage rating not exceeding 13.5 volts and output not exceeding 20 volts and other than Audio Cassette Recorder or Record Player, was imported by the respondents, M/s. Swami Narayan Electronics. On an information that the goods were misdeclared in description and undervalued, the same were examined in the presence of the importers' representative and were found to be D.C. Micro Motor 6 volt Model No. MMI-6 S6 RK of Singapore origin. The matter was taken up for adjudication. The Additional Commissioner levied the higher rate of duty of Rs. 13 per piece plus 50% Aux. Duty plus 25% Countervailing Duty and 10% Special on Countervailing Duty, on the ground that the Micro Motors in question were suitably for use on tape ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of imports by M/s. Pieco Electronics is not correct. There is no evidence whatso- ever to show that the invoice price does not reflect the true value of the goods. As such the order of enhancement of CIF value, passed by Additional Collector, is not maintainable and the same is set aside in the absence of sufficient corroborative evidence to prove that the values reflected in the invoices are not the correct value of the goods. The invoice value must be accepted under Rule 3 of the Valuation Rules of 1988 for purposes of assessment to duty. Lastly, I do not find any evidence of deliberate attempt by the importer to evade payment of customs duty by mis-declaring the goods. As such imposition of penalty is not justified and the same is set ....