Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2024 (7) TMI 486

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../unit and the quantity was 10,000 Nos.; and LH 3MM Strip (Ovulation Test Strip) value being USD 0.008/unit and the quantity was 10,000 Nos. On verification, they found that Bill of Entry 875187 dated 13.12.2010 was filed at Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai where the similar items viz., HCG Strip 3 MM (diagnostic device) valued at USD 0.23/unit and the quantity was 1,600 Nos. along with LH Strip 3MM (diagnostic device) valued at USD 1.373/unit and the quantity was 800 Nos. On questioning the difference in the value Shri T. Grewal, Director/CEO of the appellant in his letter dated 6.7.2011 had stated that the difference in price was due to packaging used for the same product, where cost are higher when the products are designed ostensibly for the co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... should have been accepted without going into Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules. As per Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, the factors to be considered are similarity of the goods, the time of import, the quantity and the commercial levels. The Mumbai consignment was in December 2010 and the Bangalore imports were in 2011 and the quantities were not comparable and the packing made all the difference in the price as already discussed above the retail packing versus bulk quantities. To substantiate their claim, they relied on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi vs. DM International: 2013 (289) ELT 169 (Tri.-Del.). 3. The learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the lower ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ms, Mumbai: 2015 (317) ELT 264 (Tri.-Mumbai), the Tribunal has held that: "4.1 If the value has to be loaded based on the contemporaneous value of the imports of identical/similar goods, one of the relevant facts for consideration is the quantum of imports involved in the transactions and also the nature of goods, in respect of the material particulars. It is a normal trade practice that if the quantity of goods purchased and sold is high/discounts are offered and the price of the transactions will be lower. Similarly, it is also a well-known fact that branded goods fetch a higher price than unbranded goods. In the present case, we observe that the quantum of imports was substantial and the goods were also unbranded. There is no evidence ....