TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 275
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the invoice dated 30/06/2010 raised by the exporter i.e. M/s Graser, Italy. 2. As the officers doubted the value declared by the appellant, the valuation of the same was undertaken and it was believed that the same would be to the tune of Rs. 56,99,871/-. The officers also noticed a quantity of 197.59 gms. of jewellery in excess than the declared quantity. Accordingly, the entire consignment was seized on the reasonable belief that the goods were under valued. 3. Resultantly, investigations were undertaken and the statement of one of the Directors was recorded. It was deposed by the Director that the jewellery, in question, was purchased during auction of the same in Italy as the owner company M/s Graser had gone into liquidation. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....through bid and agreed at the time of bid i.e. almost one year ago was mentioned in the invoice No. 6 dated 30/06/2010 and the importer had declared the same value in the bill of entry. However, the Commissioner has not accepted the said value on the ground that as per Section 14 of the Customs Act, the value of the imported goods shall be the transaction value, i.e., the price actually paid or payable for the goods for delivery at the time and place of importation. He has observed that since the price of the goods was paid by the importer with reference to sale in July, 2009 and not for delivery at the time and place of importation which was in July, 2010, the said value cannot be accepted as the correct value. Accordingly, the Commissione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... show that the jewellery, in question, was purchased by the appellant in close bid auction through sale confirmation issued by the Court of Bassano Del Grappa, Italy. The said value stands rejected by the lower Authorities on a simple ground that the sale was concluded one year prior to the actual import of the goods. As such, the Commissioner has rejected the value in terms of the provisions of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation [Determination of Value of Imported Goods] Rules, 2007 and enhanced the same in terms of the provisions of Rule 9 of the said Customs Valuation Rules. We note that for rejecting the transaction value under Rule 12 of the Valuation Rules, it is incumbent upon the lower Authorities to entertain a doubt about the truth ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sole ground that import has taken place subsequent to the actual date of purchase of the goods. 9. We are fortified in our views by the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CC, Vishakhapatnam vs. Aggarwal Industries Ltd. reported in 2011 (272) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.), wherein it was held that the shipping of the goods after the expiry of the shipping period at the contract price itself would attract duty at the contract price and the volatile fluctuations of the price of the goods in international market will not require enhancement of the value. 10. It is also seen that there are findings by the lower Authorities on the jewellery being in excess of the declared quantum, by 197.59 gms. Learned Advocate appearing for ....