2019 (4) TMI 1188

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rt of 'FAG ball bearings' against six bills of entry filed in 2005. The lower authorities have held that the goods were undervalued and, hence, liable to differential duty of Rs. 12,74,090/- on re-assessed value, enhanced by Rs. 35,99,455/- from the original value of Rs. 1,51,23,265/- besides confiscating the goods and imposing penalties thereon. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant informs that five of the consignments that had been already cleared and the sixth provisionally assessed on the reasonable belief of being misdeclared, were found to have been misdeclared by the original authority with consequential confirmation of differential duty on all six. It is his contention that invoking of extended period in the show cause notice lea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... applies. However, the "transaction value" that is relied upon in this case is the value of scrap. Now, each of the consignments comprised around 30% of prime material. The value declared by the importer as transaction value in this case would be the value of the goods that have been claimed by the importer, i.e. the total of 34 tons of scrap. If the goods themselves are different, the transaction value in this case appears to have been not for just scrap, but of goods which is a third category as prime material. Therefore, the price that is mentioned in the invoice is not transaction value specified in Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules. The distinction between the declared value and transaction value as is evident. We are therefore of the view....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of imported goods as well as the manufacturing cost which ruled out applicability of rule 7 of the said Rules. The enhancement has been effected on the basis of the published price of the manufacturer after extending permissible discount and the adjudicating authority has restricted the duty liability to 70% of the list price of 2002/01/1st March 2002. 6. The rejection of the declared value cannot be cause of cavil as the declared value of the imported goods were not in consonance with the price list for the said goods. However, the applicability, and validity, of the price list for determining the value under section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 is questionable for not being consistent with section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 and rule 4 of Cust....