2017 (6) TMI 991

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al assessable value of Rs. 2,03,598/- with duty liability of Rs. 82,161/-. The Bill of Entry was assessed under Risk Management System. Duty was paid and goods cleared. Subsequently, SIIB officers intercepted the consignment and investigated into the value of the imported goods. Market enquiry was conducted based on which market prices were determined as under : S. No. Description of Item Declared Price Market Price 1. Skin Cover for mobile phone USD 0.10/dozen Rs.30 per piece 2. Zipper Cover for mobile phone USD 0.125/dozen Rs.10 per piece 3. Mobile phone battery (unbranded) USD 0.32/piece Rs.150 per piece 4. Mobile phone battery (unbranded) USD 0.27/piece Rs.150 per piece &nbs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... identical goods imported in the contemporaneous period and determined the value to Rs. 4,36,325/-. Ld. Counsel further submitted that it is settled position of law that the Customs authorities are required to accept the transaction value normally and are empowered to reject the same only on the basis of valid reasons enumerated in the Valuation Rules. Market enquiry and NIDB data, cannot be a valid reason for rejecting the declared value. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. Vs - 2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC). Accordingly, he submitted that the impugned order merits to be set aside. 5. Ld. D.R, Shri B. Balamurugan countered the arguments and supported the impugned order. It is the Revenue s view th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re us, it is not alleged that the appellant has mis-declared the price actually paid. Nor was there a mis-description of the goods imported as was the case in Padia Sales Corporation. It is also not the respondent's case that the particular import fell within any of the situations enumerated in Rule 4(2). No reason has been given by the Assistant Collector for rejecting the transaction value under Rule 4(1) except the price list of vendor. In doing so, the Assistant Collector not only ignored Rule 4(2) but also acted on the basis of the vendor's price list as if a price list is invariably proof of the transaction value. This was erroneous and could not be a reason by itself to reject the transaction value. A discount is a commercial....