2015 (3) TMI 116

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the CIF value of the goods imported by the appellant at ICD, Loni during the period of dispute was less than the notified the tariff value of the brass scrap during that period. During inquiry, the appellant submitted cheques for payment of the differential duty on provisional basis as calculated by the officers. Subsequently, the Departmental officers were of the view the assessable value should be adopted on the basis of the tariff value of the brass scrap during the period of import by loading the same by 30% as value addition. On this basis, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant for recovery of differential customs duty of Rs. 11,54,380/- under Section 28 (1) of Customs Act, 1962 and also for imposition of penalty under Secti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Department has determined the assessable value of the goods by invoking Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules on the basis of tariff value of the brass scrap and by assuming value addition of 30% in the manufacture of brass valves, check valves, cartridge etc. from the brass scrap, that in terms of Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, subject to Rule 12, the value of the imported goods shall be the transaction value adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10 and such transaction value shall be accepted and that if the transaction value cannot be determined under Rule 3 (1), the same shall be determined by proceeding sequentially through Rule 4 to Rule 9, that in this case no attempt had been made by the Department to de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d of dispute and the value addition, that the very fact that the value of the goods imported by them is less than the price of brass scrap during the period of dispute casts serious doubts about correctness of the declared value, that in view of these circumstances, the burden of proof that the declared value represents the actual transaction value would shift to the appellant, but this burden of proof has not been discharged by the appellant. She, therefore, pleaded that the appellant have not been able to establish prima facie case in their favour and therefore the amount of Rs. 1,16,487/- paid by the appellant during investigation is not sufficient to safeguard the interest of the Revenue. 5. We have considered the submissions from bo....