Case Law Details
Himalaya Tractor Co. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Kolkata)
CESTAT Kolkata held that rejection of declared value based on NIDB data on similar goods unsustainable. Accordingly, differential duty demand and imposition of penalty thereon is unsustainable.
Facts- The Appellant is a registered partnership firm, imported tractor parts in lots from China. The Appellant filed nine Bills of Entry for home consumption which were assessed to duty and the proper officer of Customs has passed orders for the clearance of goods. After release of the goods, the Appellant moved the goods to Delhi at their godown for the purpose of trading. On 10th October 2012, the Appellant imported another consignment of Tractor parts under Bill of Entry No.8177874. The appellant paid the custom duty thereon. But the Bill of Entry was not released and taken up for investigation by DRI, Kolkata.
A show cause notice was issued to the Appellant u/s. 28 r.w.s. 124 of the Customs Act, alleging that the goods declared by the Appellant were unbranded which need to be treated as branded because of embossing of SORL on the parts. The Notice proposed to re-determine the assessable value of the goods imported.
The Commissioner of Customs rejected the assessed value and re-determined the value as per Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules 2007. He has confirmed the demand of customs duty along with interest and imposed equal amount of duty as penalty.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
