TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 509
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lligence that the appellant have mis-declared the actual value of the imported consignments of auto parts imported by them searched the premises of the appellant on 5 September 2017 and seized certain goods namely automobile parts of SORL, PHC and SABRO brands primarily on the ground that RSP/MRP was not affixed on the imported auto parts and the appellant was not able to produce any import documents for verification to prove their legitimate import at the time of the visit of the officers and, therefore, the goods as listed under Annexure A to the Panchnama dated 5 September 2017 were put as per the provisions of detention under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant have been making request for provisional release of the seiz....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lause by binding the issuing bank to keep it renewed and valid till final adjudication of the case. (d) On the condition that the importer shall not challenge the identity/brand/value of the goods". 2. The appellant feeling that the conditions of provisional release are too harsh, have approached the Commissioner (Appeals) for some relief in this regard, however, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order dated 24/07/2018 has endorsed the above conditions of provisional release. The appellants are before us against the above-mentioned order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 24/07/2018. 3. We have heard both the sides and perused the record of appeal. 4. It is seen that the primary ground for detention of the goods under Section 11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant himself under valid import document or same has been purchased at a valid invoices from the other importers or traders. We are pained to notice that the detention/seizure of the goods is absolutely without any basis. We also find that a show cause notice has been issued in the meantime which is dated 1st March 2018 whereunder it has been alleged that the declared price at the time of the import is much lower than the prices provided in the price list in respect of auto mobile parts of "SORL" brand goods. We find that since the declared value of the import consignment has already been enhanced by the Department and as it is a settled legal principle that once enhanced, the same value cannot be re-visited again without any concrete....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reference to the price list. Admittedly in this case discount up to 30% was allowable in ordinary circumstances by the Indian agent itself. There was the additional factor that the stock in question was old and it was a one time sale of 5 year old stock. When a discount is permissible commercially, and there is nothing to show that the same would not have been offered to any one else wishing to buy the old stock, there is no reason why the declared value in question was not acceptable under Rule 4 (1)". 5. In view of above, we feel that price list cannot only form basis for rejecting the transaction value under Section 4 of Customs Act, 1962 and, therefore, we do not find any valid ground of alleging any mis-declaration in the declared val....