AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 324
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clared as "Inkjet print-paper" from the same overseas supplier, the appellants had mis-declared the goods. From the EDI System in the IGM, it was traced that another consignment supplied by the appellants to M/s Agarwal Photo Sales, declared to be "Blank Video Cassettes" was awaiting clearance. Bill of entry in respect of the consignment was not filed at that time. The said consignment was examined and it was found that it contained not only Blank Video Cassettes as declared in IGM but also 30 Panasonic Video Cameras, which were not declared in the IGM. The declared importer in the IGM, M/s Agarwal Photo Sales refused to take the consignment and therefore, the appellant, who was also a exporter of the consignment from the Singapore, approac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect of the brand, model etc. and some undeclared goods were found in the consignment. It was alleged that no data is available for determination of the value of the goods under Rules 4, 5, 7 & 8 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of the imported goods) Rules 2007. It was asserted that these rules cannot be invoked and therefore value was refixed under Rule 9 of the said Rules, on the basis of contemporary import/NIDB data and where the values were not available, internet value was taken and the valuation was arrived at for items on the basis of reverse calculation. The demand was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority and the goods were confiscated. The goods were offered for redemption on payment of redemption fine ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lleging concealment. He argued that the content of the cartons match with the invoices. Therefore, the charges for rejection of declared values are unsustainable in law. He further argued that the Commissioner has not examined Rule 4 to 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules before arriving at Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Pacific International Traders Vs. Union of India - 2002 (12) ELT 544 (Bom). In the said decision, Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has held in similar circumstances that where goods are abandoned by importers and no Bill of Entry has been filed by them nor any import documents produced by them, the title of goods remains with the exporter. There....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he goods were not cleared. The submission of the petitioner is that since the buyers have refused to take the consignment the petitioners as owners of the goods are entitled to the return thereof. 3. It is an admitted position that the bill of entry has not been filed and the buyers have virtually abandoned the goods and in fact they have taken a stand that they have not even imported the goods. In the case of Union of India v. Sampat Raj Dugar reported in 1992 (58) E.L.T. 163 the Supreme Court has held that if the bill of entry is not filed by the importer and the importer has abandoned the goods title in the goods will not pass to the importer and the exporter will be entitled to re-export or return of the goods. 4. Mr. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts. As far as the present consignment is concerned, which is the subject matter of this petition, even the bill of entry is not filed by the importers nor import documents produced and in fact they have abandoned the goods. It is not possible to link the present consignment with the earlier consignments which were allegedly under-valued. It is seen from record that the importers have not claimed any right title and interest in respect of the said goods nor have presented the bill of entry. In the circumstances we do not see any justification on the part of the respondents in detaining the goods which are abandoned by the consignees. 6. In a similar situation the Division Bench in the case of J.P. Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of ....