TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (7) TMI 52
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge. However, the appellant submitted an authorization for Shri Dinesh Yadav to assist him in the clearance of his baggage. The name of the consignor was shown as Susie Gonzalez Inc. DBA/Friends Cargo International, Miami, USA as agents for the consignee, the appellant and the said cargo arrived at Maersk CFS, D' Node on vessel Maersk Carolina under IGM No. 8474 and Item No. UB-147. The appellant filed his BDF by giving a value declaration of Rs. 4.79 lakhs for various items such as P computer, DVD, Music system, Home Theatre, video cassette/CDs, household linen, pictures/paintings, household tools, lamps/shades, decorative items, furniture, binoculars / telescope, mattresses /beddings, mirrors, clothes, books and filed, toiletries and miscellaneous items of household which were all declared as used. 3. Meanwhile, intelligence was also gathered by the officers of the Special Intelligence Unit (SIU) attached to the office of the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai II that show pieces and decorative items of high value could be cleared at UB Centre. Accordingly, it was ordered that the detailed inventory of the said baggage should be conducted by the officers of the UB Centre in pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on had been submitted by the appellant along with the BDF, was recorded and Shri Yadav confirmed in his statement that he had filled in the BDF form on the basis of instructions received from some third person who had introduced the appellant to the said Shri Yadav. The statements of the appellant as well as that of Shri Dinesh Yadav have been relied upon in the show cause notice and, therefore, such statements constitute enough evidence to prove that the actions of Shri Yadav were not with the knowledge or consent of the appellant. As such, by virtue of Section 147(2), the appellant should not be held liable for penalty nor should the goods be confiscated based on an unauthorised action of his agent who has owned up his mistake. It was further submitted that the Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the appellant has acted bonafidely by attaching along with the BDF a complete packing list, which gave details of all the 237 packages imported by the appellant. The description of the goods appearing in the packing list was other than and in addition to' the description of the 14 items given in the BDF. Since the value declared in the BDF of used personal effects which were ment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d from the same manufacturer whose web site is accessed. In a number of case, the overseas retail sale prices as indicated on the tags/stickers appearing on the furniture have been straightaway adopted as the assessable value without appreciating that such tag could not be considered as representing the market prices of such goods in the course of international trade. In the absence of any legally acceptable method available on record, the department was duty bound to determine the assessable value based on the value as declared by the appellant in his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Since the amount of Dir-hams 5.25 lakhs (equivalent to Rs. 66 lakhs approximately) which the appellant paid to the supplier represented the transaction value of the imported goods, that alone should have been accepted as the assessable value. Instead the Customs have adopted a completely arbitrary and fictitious value based primarily on the local market prices of the goods as ascertained during a visit to an Exhibition in Mumbai by one officer of the customs who is not even claimed to be an expert on the subject. The reason assigned by the Commissioner for denying the TR benefit is also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nter alia submitted that from the declaration form it may be seen that it is written 'self' and the same is also notarised. Therefore, the ground taken by the appellant that he had signed a blank form may not be correct. Drawing attention to Rule 8 of the Bona fide Baggage Rules, 1998 the ld. JDR submitted that the said rule permits clearance of bona fide baggage in case of transfer of residence whereas the goods in question are in commercial quantity. In this regard he drew our attention to para 31 of the impugned order. He also referred to Section 78 of the Customs Act, 1962. He submitted that the said section provides that "the rate of duty and tariff valuation, if any, applicable to baggage shall be the rate and valuation in force on the date on which a declaration is made in respect of such baggage under Section 77." Referring to para 27 of the EXIM Policy he submitted that there is no requirement to comply with the Bill of Entry, shipping bill etc. Referring to sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act he submitted that the provisions of Section 15 are not to be applied for the baggage. He also submitted that Section 15, Sub-Sections (a), (b) and (c) will also not apply to tre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 237 items as equivalent to Dirham 5.25 lakhs. This statement of the appellant has been relied upon in the show cause notice. We have to examine whether this value should have been accepted for assessment purposes or not. 10. It was also argued by the ld. DR that the provisions of Valuation Rules do not apply for determination of value of baggage. We cannot accept the arguments as the scheme of the Customs Act does not provide for a separate method of valuation for baggage. The provisions of Section 14 clearly provide that wherever duty of customs is chargeable with reference to the value, such value shall be determined as per the said section and the valuation rules framed under the said section. The Valuation Rules provide a complete code for determining the assessable value, if necessary, by resorting to best judgment method which is what the revenue has done in the present case. The ld. DR argued that in most cases of baggage imports, the concept of transaction value is not applied for determining the assessable value. This is probably true in most of the cases of baggage imports, where evidence of transaction value is either not forthcoming or is not relevant on account of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....certained would not work out to more than Dirham 5.25 lakhs. We, therefore, hold that the value as determined by the Commissioner in the order is not correct. In the absence of any other valid basis for determining a different value, the value as declared by the appellant in his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act deserves acceptance. To this value, a further amount of Rs. 4.5 lakhs is required to be added as the value of used items. The sum total of the two would be the total assessable value of the baggage which, we were informed, comes to Rs. 66 lakhs. 12. It was the contention of the appellant that the BDF filed by him been signed by the appellant in blank and that therefore appellant could not be held responsible for any wrong declaration appearing on it. We find that statements of the CHA as well as of the appellant which the notice relies upon do support this contention of the appellant. However, we are unable to hold that the appellant can be absolved of the responsibility for signing a blank declaration. We are, therefore, proceeding on the premise that the appellant is completely was responsible for the declaration made by him and that the circumstance of his ....