TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (3) TMI 642
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Dollar 3.00 FOB per piece. It was alleged in the show cause notice that the value of identical goods imported by them at Delhi vide Bill of Entry No. 605118 dated 9-12-97 was declared as US $ 45.6 FOB per piece. It therefore appeared that the value declared in respect of condensor imported under Bill of Entry No. 3446 dated 21-7-97 and Bill of Entry No. 3515 dated 25-7-97 and cleared from Air Cargo Complex, Trivandrum was grossly undervalued. Therefore, investigation was conducted and statements of Shri G.R. Batra Prop, of importing firm M/s. G&G Enterprises and Shri Rajasekharan Nair, Representative of Customs House Agent firm M/s. Air Travel Enterprises (K) (P) Ltd. were recorded. After investigation differential duty of Rs. 38,27,249/- w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....comparable. Under the provisions of Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, the transaction value would have been rejected only if the goods were covered under the exception mentioned in Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules. Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules was not on the statute books at the time of assessment of the goods and their clearances after finalisation of provisional assessment. Therefore, the adjudicating authority was required to accept the transaction value and there was no reason for issuing show cause notice after more than 4 years of the final assessment of the goods. Reliance placed by the adjudicating authority on a stray bill of entry dated 9-12-1997 of M/s. Sanden Vikas India for comparing the prices and takin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fication. At that time the bill of entry under which M/s. Sanden Vikas had imported the goods @ 45.06 per piece was available with the department for finalizing the provisional assessment. No specific ground is alleged for suppressing the information regarding the value of the goods in the show cause notice except the averment that the value of the goods was wrongly declared. It is settled law that declared price cannot be rejected unless exception specified under Rule 4(2) of Valuation Rules are attracted. Merely comparing prices of two bill of entry is not sufficient to reject the declared price. Reliance was placed on the following decisions :- (1) Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CC - 2002 (122) E.L.T. 321 (SC) (2)&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dia Limited at Delhi. The Commissioner has also given a finding that the contention of importer that Rule 10A cannot be applied in this case since the said rule was notified only from 1998 is also misconstrued since rule is being applied only after a date subsequent to coming into effect of Rule i.e. in the show cause notice dated 15-5-2002. The value cannot be accepted if it is found to be covered under special circumstances as indicated in Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules. In the subject case, the value furnished by the importer for clearance of condenser is found to be exceptionally low. Hence it is not true transaction value but falls within the special circumstances specified in Rule 4(2). The sale is not in the ordinary course....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have considered the submissions made by both the sides. In this case, the value of the condensers imported by the appellants were enhanced solely on the ground that the condensers imported by M/s. Sanden Vikas India Limited, Faridabad from M/s. Sanden Corporation, Japan were valued at US $ 45.60 per piece. We find that M/s. Sanden Vikas India Limited, Faridabad had imported condenser from Sanden Corporation, Japan where identification mark for these condenser are 001Z-RU26692E and these have been described as the component as per part No. IS-087860 whereas the condenser imported by the appellant are described as M.P. parts condenser by M/s. Uniden Systems (S) PTE Ltd., M-part condenser by M/s. Pely Auto Aircon Parts PTE Ltd. The country of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of CHA this fact has been stated. Revenue also could not show this after verification of the statement. We find that in the statement of Shri G.R. Batra, Prop, of the appellant concern, it is stated that "I have been shown a copy bill of entry No. 113121 dated 17-11-1997 filed by my company along with invoice No. 57521 dated 30-10-1997 issued by M/s. Uniden Systems (S) PTE Ltd., Singapore and corresponding country of origin certificate. It is true that in the country of origin certificate the manufacturer of goods have been mentioned as M/s. Sanden Corporation, Japan. I have also shown invoice No. 09520 dated 5-12-1997 issued by M/s. Sanden Corporation, Japan. It has been seen that the item heat exchanger which we have imported at the p....