TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as put on hold for check on 26.5.2016. During examination, it was found that the following items were found to be contained in the container No. TGHU8311979/40". S.No Goods Declared Quantity Declared 1. Plastic Dustbin 24 Pcs. 2. MOP 80 Pcs. 3. Screw Driver 1000 Pcs. 4. Cup for UJ Cross 454 Grs. 5. UJ Cross 731 Doz. 6. Body of UJ Cross 246 Grs. 7. Drill Machine 5200 Pcs. 8. Shoe Polisher 180 Pcs. 9. Angle Grinder 1000 Pcs. 10. Drill Machine-1 600 Pcs. During the examination, it was found that the item declared as Drill machine-I (600 pcs.) was actually concrete Vibrator to two different sizes i.e. 300 Pcs of 1 meter and other 300 Pcs. of 1.5 meter on the ground of this mis-declaration in the description of the goods imported vide the said Bill of Entry the consignment were seized under the provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The samples were also drawn and the container was resealed with the Customs seal and handed over to the custodian under Panchnama dated 7.6.2016. During the investigation statement of Shri Tushar Dang, partner of the appellant was recorded on 9.6.2018 under Section 108 of the Cus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... done in this case. The Rule 12 of CVR, 2007, only gives the assessing officer power to reject the transaction value if the same is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act. This rule does not mandate the acceptance of value other than as per Rule 4 to 9 of CVR, 2007. 7. Learned Advocate has also submitted that their case is fully covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner -2012 (122) ELT 321 (SC), wherein it is held that unless the price actually paid for the particular transactions fall within the exception under Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rule, the customs authorities are bound to accept the transaction value. It is submitted by the learned Advocate that the decision of Eicher Tractors although delivered in respect of old Valuation Rules of 1988, the provisions of Rules of Valuation under Customs Act, 1962 have not changed and remained the same after its substitution with effect from 10.10.2007. The concept of transaction value remains the same even after the enactment of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Thus, the ratio laid in Eicher Tractors are applicable in the new Valuation Rules....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Quantity Declared Declared Value per pcs. Duty declared Re-determined value per pcs. Duty re-assessed Differential duty 1. Plastic Dustbin 24 pcs. 4 1964.30 4 1964.30 0.00 2. MOP 80 Pcs. 2 3274.00 2.5 4092.50 818.50 3. Screw Driver 1000 Pcs. 1.5 30693.90 3.5 71619.00 40925.10 4. Cup for UJ Cross 454 Grs. 7.5 62545.10 9 75054.20 12509.10 5. UJ Cross 731 Doz. 5.4 72508.20 6.5 87278.50 14770.30 6. Body of UJ Cross 246 Grs. 12 54224.20 Rs. 13.5 61002.20 6778.00 7. Drill machine 5200 Pcs. 1.87 178616.50 4 382067.30 203450.80 8. Shoe Polisher 180 Pcs. 8 2645.90 10.5 34716.70 8265.80 9. Angle Grinder 1000 Pcs. 2 36737.20 4.5 82658.80 45921.60 10. Drill machine-1 600 Pcs. 3.5 38574.10 300 Pcs Concrete Vibrator 1.5 Mts 10 55105.80 16531.70 11. On examination found 300 Pcs. Concrete Vibrator 1 Mtr 12 66127.00 66127.00 Total 505588.40 921686.30 416097.90 12. After perusal of the order in original and appeal, in appeal we find that the assessing officer has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for assessment must, necessarily, be the outcome of sequential application of the other rules in Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. We notice that no such exercise has been undertaken by the lower authorities, in adjudication as well as in appeal, and the process of enhancement of assessable value lacks the sanctity accorded by law. 6. In arriving at this conclusion, we place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court thus in Eicher Tractors Ltd., Haryana v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)]. 'Both Section 14(1) and Rule 4 provide that the price paid by an importer to the vendor in the ordinary course of commerce shall be taken to be the value in the absence of any of the special circumstances indicated in Section 14(1) and particularized in Rule 4(2). Rule 4(1) speaks of the transaction value. Utilization of the definite article indicates that what should be accepted as the value for the purpose of assessment to Customs duty is the price actually paid for the particular transaction, unless of course the price is unacceptable for the reasons set out in Rule 4(2). Payable in the context of the languag....