TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (8) TMI 1034
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 112(a) of the Customs Act. Duty of Rs. 81,043/- was also confirmed. 2. The Department's case is that the goods imported by the appellant company were not of Taiwan origin as claimed by the importers but were actually goods of Indian origin, the goods having been exported from India earlier to Dubai by another Indian Co., viz., M/s. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. The Department alleged that the goods were exported by M/s. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. to M/s. Topline International, Dubai at the rate of US $ 3.55 and US $ 3.45 per kg. CIF Dubai. The Department sought to reject the CIF transaction value of US $ 1.40 per kg. between the appellant importers and M/s. Khalifa General Trading, Dubai who exported the impugned goods to India. The Department sought to reject the transaction value on account of the wide difference between the price at which the goods were exported by M/s. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. and the transaction value shown by the appellants in the Bills of Entry. As per the show cause notice (SCN) dated 2-7-1997, the Department proposed to value the imported goods under Rule 7(1) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988, af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cost, situations may arise in international trade where commercial expediency would necessitate the disposal of goods even at lower prices with a view to reduce the loss in situations where prices were falling. The position in the case of Poly Propylene yarn at the time of their import by the appellants was that the prices were falling. This was borne out by the statements of the Purchase and Export Manager of M/s. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. wherein it had been averred that the purchaser in Dubai was advised to export the goods to a Company in Iran to minimise heavy loss. In the case of appellants the transaction value was the correct value obtaining in the course of international trade for delivery in or around February, 1997. Therefore, rejection of the transaction value in the case of the appellants was wholly untenable. 6. It was further contended on behalf of the appellants that the Commissioner had wrongfully enhanced the assessable value on the basis of wholesale price in India. Ld. Counsel referred to Rule 3(ii) of the Valuation Rules, according to which where the value of imported goods cannot be determined as the transaction value as per Rule 3(i) the same has to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T. 327 (Tribunal) - Sawhney Export House (P) Ltd. v. C.C., and (c) 1993 (65) E.L.T. 500 (Tribunal) - Kumar Associates v. C.C. Ld. Counsel also referred to the Tribunal decision in the case of Surya Products reported in [1995 (78) E.L.T. 249] wherein the Tribunal had held that for arriving at assessable value taking into consideration of the selling price of the item in the local market was not sustainable. 7. As regards penalty, ld. Counsel submitted that the Commissioner had held that there was mis-delcaration of the country of origin by the appellants inasmuch as the appellants had actually contracted for import of Poly Propylene Filament Yarn Dyed (PFY)/Poly Propylene Yarn of Taiwanese Origin. As per packing list, the exporters had falsely certified that the goods were of Taiwanese origin. Ld. Counsel contended that appellants had merely gone by the certificate given by the exporter in the invoice and the packing list which stated that the goods were of Taiwanese origin. The appellants could not be blamed for mis-declaration, if any, by the exporter, especially when it was not possible to determine the country of origin of the goods b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds, ld. DR contended that this did not mean that there were no identical or similar imported goods available in the market and that the price of such goods cannot be ascertained at all. He referred to the observations of the Commissioner in paragraph 16 for working out the assessable value. Commissioner had allowed the abatements permissible under law for arriving at the assessable value. Appellants had not contested the said conclusions. Further, since the appellants themselves had not disputed the fact that the goods were actually of Indian origin, the declaration made by the exporter that the goods were of Taiwan origin went against the appellants. In any case in terms of Section 111(m), the goods would become liable for confiscation when it does not correspond in respect of value or in any other relevant particulars with the entries under the Customs Act. As a result, the appellant Co., as well as its Managing Director had become liable for penalty for intentionally mis-declaring the value as well as the country of origin of the goods. 9. On careful consideration of the submissions made and on perusal of the record, we find that the submissions made by the appellants have fo....