2006 (4) TMI 319

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... However, the Department fixed a value at $ 200 per piece. They appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order rejecting the appeal of the appellants. Hence, the appellants have come before the Tribunal for relief. 3. Shri V. Shetty, the learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri K.S. Reddy, learned SDR for the Revenue. 4. The learned Advocate pointed out that the Original authority has determined the value on the basis of Internet price. He brought to our notice a large number of rulings, according to which the valuation cannot be done simply on the basis of price shown in the website. The learned Advocate made the following submissions :- (i) The fixation of value at....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to establish that the value declared in the Bill of Entry is the true transaction value. In view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. C.C., Mumbai [2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)], the transaction value cannot be rejected except for any of the grounds stated under Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. (vii) In view of the above submissions, the confiscation of the goods for mis-declaration of value is not sustainable. Hence the redemption fine and penalty are to be set aside. (viii) The difference in manufacturer's price list and invoice price is not a ground for rejection of transaction value. The following case laws were relied on. (i) Commissioner of Customs, Madras v. Tapa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... following orders are relied on :- (a) M/s. Big Apple Computers v. Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad [Final Order Nos. 957 and 958/2005 dated 20-6-2005 in appeal Nos. C/241/02 and C/236/2004]. (b) M/s. Rex Printing Press v. Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata [Final order No. 1980/2004, dated 15-12-2004 in appeal No. C/200/04] [2005 (184) E.L.T. 73] 5. The learned JDR pointed out that the Internet price is the price of the same manufacturer. There is no reason to discard the same. The lower authorities have correctly followed the procedure in rejecting the transaction value under Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules. 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The transaction value can be rejected under the c....