TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (1) TMI 27
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of appeal, the appellants have stated that the Department did not adhere to the procedure prescribed in Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules in rejecting the transaction value. The procedure prescribed under Rule 10A was not carried out. Since prices of identical models of VCD were not available, prices of similar models imported at Madras were relied upon. Ultimately, the lower authority enhanced the assessable value of the goods after rejecting the same based on certain prices, which were downloaded from the internet. Also confiscation of the goods and the imposition of penalty for enhancement of value is itself bad in law and need to be set aside. 4. Shri C. K. Karunakaran, Advocate appeared for the personal hearing and filed written s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ill be around Rs.9,000/- per piece, at which price the goods cannot be sold. The lower authority has observed that the contemporaneous imports of identical models of VCDs are not available but the prices of similar models imported at Madras are available. The lower authority also observed that the prices of similar models of VCDs downloaded from internet indicate the price as US $ 25.99 i.e. Rs.7,564/- and therefore, rejected the declared value of the goods on that basis and fixed the value of the imported VCD at Rs.4,414/- per piece also taking cue from the price of contemporaneous imports of similar goods and under Rule 6. He further felt that since there was vast difference between the declared price, and the price fixed by the departmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fixation of value is unsustainable and is set aside. in view of this, the goods are liable to be assessed to duty at the declared price. 7. In view of the fact that the goods are to be assessed to duty on the declared price, there is no question of confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty. Even otherwise, this is not a case where the value of the goods was mis-declared by the appellant as being something different from the price at which the goods had been purchased. Merely because the department sought to enhance value of the goods that does not mean that the value had been mis-declared by the appellants. Thus, there is no case for confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty. Same is also set aside for this reason. 8. The impu....