2016 (11) TMI 812

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted 27^th January, is before us with a prayer to set aside the impugned order. 2. From the facts on record, it appears that two bills of entry dated 25^th January 2000 and 11^th March 2000 were filed for import of 'beverages/carbonated soft drinks' which were referred to Special Valuation Branch as the importer and exporter appeared to be related. The imported goods were declared at a value of Rs. 13,39,835/- and this was enhanced by Rs. 2,67,967/- on assessment and order issued. In the impugned order, it is further recorded that, pending examination, goods were provisionally assessed, and a detailed questionnaire issued to the appellant on 1^st February 2000. A further reminder was sent to importer on 10^th July 2000 which was not respo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... valuation including that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Eicher Tractors Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC)], and of the Tribunal in Jindal Strips Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2001 (133) ELT 570 (Tri-Del)] and Pushpak Metals Corpn. V. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla [2014 (312) ELT 381 (Tri-Ahmd)]. 4. Learned Authorized Representative relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in Sew-Curodrive (I) Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2012 (284) ELT 294 (Tri-Del)] in exhorting us to sustain the impugned order. 5. The decision cited by Learned Authorised Representative has been rendered in the context of a declared relationship between the importer and supplier of the goods. In that co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....are the orders of the two lower authorities, about the bills of entry referred to; the reference to relationship flowing from a declaration cannot be fastened thereon. All of this is indicative of a roving inquiry without any prima facie reason to suspect a relationship. Burdening the importer with the responsibility to respond to such a vague inquiry is not only inequitable but is inconsistent with the valuation scheme in Customs Act, 1962. 9. Settled law requires acceptance of declared value as transaction value under rule 4 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 and rule 3 permits, in the event of sufficient ground for rejection of declared value, adoption of revised value but in accordance with se....