2008 (3) TMI 89

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ountry of Origin as China ; value has U.S. $ 1.84 per meter and  enclosed invoice in support of the value declared. (b) The Customs Authorities got the silk fabric  tested by the Central Silk Board and it was confirmed that the same was mulberry raw silk 100% with the GSM as 55  i.e. 55 gram per sq. mtr. corresponding to the variety identified as  Article 10103. (c) The Customs Authorities noticed that there were contemporaneous imports of raw silk of variety Article 10103 from the same supplier M/s Zhejiang Cathaya International Co. Ltd., China and the prices declared were in the range of U.S. $ 1.97 to U.S. $ 2.15 per meter. (d) The appellant vide their letter dated 15/01/05 submitted that they have declared t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r has adopted the value as U.S. $ 2.15 which was totally unjustified. 4. Learned D.R. submitted that the contemporaneous import price of imports made from the same country and the same supplier was very much on the higher side ranging from U.S. $ 1.97 to U.S. $ 2.15 and therefore the rejection of the declared assessable value and enhancement thereof was justified. He also justified the confiscation and imposition of penalty. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. It is admitted that the silk fabrics imported by them is of Article 10103 variety. It is not denied that the value of the same variety of fabrics coming from the same supplier was ranging from U.S. $ 1.97 to U.S. $ 2.15. Under these circumstances, it....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... an inference of mis-declaration by the importer. If a person receives a consignment as a gift, the transaction value is nil but the same requires to be valued for the purpose of levying Custom Duty. Fixation of value or enhancement of value for assessment purpose cannot in every case lead to an inference of mis-declaration of value in the absence of any evidence to that effect. Therefore, we are unable to accept the charge of mis-declaration and consequent confiscation and imposition of penalty. We also find that the appellant has accepted for the enhancement of price stating the reasons that they were urgently in need of the consignment. There was no unconditional acceptance of the value. In the absence of acceptance of enhancement of val....