TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 575
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was self assessed by the importer classifying the goods under tariff item 90031900 with BCD at the rate of 10% social welfare Cers at the rate of 10% and IGST rate under Notification No.1/2017 schedule 2 Sr. no. 215. The goods were classified as assorted spectacle frames and were valued at USD 1.25 per piece. The total value of consignment was declared as USD 1320. The importer was subsequently asked to produce the catalogue of the goods that they had imported and on verification of catalogue, it was found that the imported assorted spectacle frames were branded frames having brand name like 'OSIRIS'. The revenue checked the prices of the frames of brand OSIRIS and it was found that the price declared in the internet of some of the frames ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayment had been made and it was agreed that the payment would be made to the supplier within 90 days. He further stated that the value of such shop returns in usually less than 10% of the whole sale value. He further stated that he did not know why there was a difference in the quantity stated the invoice and the actual quantity found by 19 pieces. 2.3 Learned Counsel pointed out that the revenue is seeking to adopt the retail price of the said goods in India for the purpose of section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. He argued that retail price cannot be straightway adopted for valuation and no rule of Custom Valuation rule, 2007 supports this method for the purpose of valuation. He argued that, if value cannot be determined under any of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3. Learned AR relied on the impugned order. 4. We have considered rival submission we find that it is not in dispute that the goods imported by the appellant were mis-declared in quantity. As against declared quantity of 1056 frames, the actual quantity found was 1075 frames. It is also a fact that the brand imported by the appellant are OSIRIS, ECO and EPI which are very expensive brands with pricing of finish glasses ranging upwards of 180 dollars per piece. In these circumstances, the declared price of USD 1.25 per piece is obviously incorrect. The order in original clearly records that no contemporaneous import data of identical or similar goods was available and therefore adoption of rule 4 or 5 of the customs valuation rules was not ....