2017 (1) TMI 1848

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iginal rejects the value declared by the appellant importer and orders loading of value of the car to Euro 1,14,538.06 CIF. 2. The appellant has been represented by Ms. Asmita Nayak, ld. Advocate and Revenue has been represented by Shri K. Poddar, ld. DR. 3. Ld. Advocate, based on the written submissions, inter alia submits as under : (i) The price determined under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 by the learned Adjudicating Authority is erroneous as the imported car (2009 YOM) relied upon by the department and the impugned imported car (2010 YOM) are not identical goods as they are cars of different year of manufacturing. The same can be determined from their Chassis No. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted through normal banking channel. (vi) Reliance is placed in support on the following case laws: (a) CC Vs. Naufal Pazhayapura Kunhamu  2010 (251) ELT 456 (Tri.-Bang.) (b) Eicher Tractors Ltd. Vs. CC  2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC) (c) Rajdeep Singh Vs. CC  2008 (229) ELT 390 (Tri.-Del.) (d) Segu Mohammed Hanas Vs. CC  206 (196) ELT 218 (Tri.-Bang.) (e) CC, Cochin Vs. Kunhi Raman  2009 (240) ELT 537 (Tri.-Bang.) 4. The ld. AR for Revenue reiterates the findings given in the impugned orders of the lower Revenue authorities. 5. After careful consideration of the facts on record and the submissions of both the side and case laws cited, it appears that the importer ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....termination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules 2007, the appellant was asked to justify the value. In reply, the appellant produced a copy of Bill of Entry No. 713967 dated 12.12.2008 of JNPT Nhava Sheva, showing value of similar vehicle at Euro 85,370/- CIF. But the Bill of Entry No. 442617 dated 5.4.2009 is more recent to the date of import of the impugned goods than the Bill of Entry No. 713967 dated 12.12.2008, hence Bill of Entry No. 442617 dated 6.5.2009 is more relevant for comparison of value in the instant case. The appellant also submitted the copy of invoice pertaining to Bill of Entry No. 442617 dated 6.5.2009 and it is seen that there is small difference in accessories attached to the impugned car. However, a difference of Euro ....