TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (4) TMI 242
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enhancement of the goods at US $ 325 per piece. The DRI on enquiries found that M/s. ETA General Pvt. Ltd., Chennai in collaboration with M/s. Fujitsu General, Japan had sent a price list of O' General Air Conditioners effective from 4-6-2000 as 1400 Dirhams per piece Ex-Dubai which works out to US $ 380 per piece. On the basis of this evidence, the Department issued show cause notice to enhance the value of the imported O' General Air Conditioners from the declared value of US $ 150 CIF to US $ 380. The Commissioner has in the impugned order rejected the transaction value in terms of Section 14 of the Act and has proceeded to value under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules. He has also ordered for confiscation of the 96 pieces of O' Gene....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3/pc to US $ 0.81 has been set aside as import of 9 months prior to the imported goods has held to be not contemporaneous in nature. (iv) Further reference is made to United Traders India v. CC, Chennai [2003 (159) E.L.T. 684 (T) = 2003 (56) RLT 663] wherein also the similar proposition has been laid down. The Counsel has filed detailed tabulated citations with a gist of the rulings, which is noted herein below: - (a) Mark Auto Industries Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi [2003 (162) E.L.T. 261 (T) = 2003 (57) RLT 495] Assessable Value - Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 - Transaction value - Rejection of transaction value on basis of import of identical goods by another per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tment's contention that transaction value was too low highly subjective - Unless any of the exceptions contained in the proviso under sub-rule (2) to Rule 4 of Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988 applies, transaction value has to be accepted - Appellants claim for assessment of goods and value declared allowed - Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962. (e) Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai [2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)] Valuation (Customs) - Transaction value, how to be determined - Subject to three conditions laid down in Section 14(1) of Customs Act, 1962 of time, place and absence of special circumstances, price of imported goods is to be determined under Section 14(1A) in accordance with the Customs Valua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the goods covered by the invoice - Country of origin, quantity, time, model and brand are also different - Invoice not acceptable - Transaction value not to be discarded - Appeal allowed. (h) Sheraton Overseas & Anr. v. CC, Chennai [2002 (144) E.L.T. 432 (T) = 2002 (49) RLT 77] Assessable value - Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Quotation - Transaction value not to be enhanced on the basis of quotation of price and statement of appellant about import at quoted price when it is retracted, quotation is of doubtful nature and no other evidence of real value is brought on record by Revenue - Appeal allowed. Statement - Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 - Retraction - Of confessional statement ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....14 of Customs Act, 1962. (k) Commissioner v. Forte Garments [2002 (150) E.L.T. 622] Valuation (Customs) - Transaction value - Rejection of - Proof of contemporaneous imports of same goods, country, time, quantity and quality as that of impugned goods is required to be produced by revenue - In absence of such proof, price declared in Bill of Entry has to be accepted - Rule 5 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 - Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962. 3.Ld. JCDR submitted that the appellant had admitted for enhancement of the value and therefore the Department can on such admission enhance the value of the goods. She submitted that in the case of CC, Bombay v. Shiba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame supplier and in view of the evidence available, the transaction value was rejected. So also in the case of P.K. Himatsingka & Co., wherein also the Department was able to produce price of identical goods supplied to another firm, which was comparable in nature. In the present case, the only ground taken by the Revenue is the admission made by the appellant at the time of investigation by DRI agreeing for enhancement of value to US $ 325. However, in the reply to the show cause notice, he has retracted his admission and stated that the valuation adopted by the Revenue is not comparable with the goods imported from Dubai of Thailand origin. The Department is attempting to compare goods with goods of Japanese origin. In terms of Section 14....