ASHA AMEE ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from OIO No. 10/2004, dated 16 -3 -2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin regarding the assessable value in respect of 2000 pieces of goods declared as GEEPAS Brand VCD Players with Model No. GVCD 2514 imported from China, supplied by M/s. Shenzhen Xin Mei Ge Industry Co. Ltd., China, through their Customs House Agent M/s. Cafco Freight Systems Pvt. Ltd. The declared assessable value of the goods was Rs. 414/ - per piece and the Revenue, relying on the E.mail originating from United Arab Emirates (UAE), enhanced the value to US $ 23 per piece which worked out to Rs. 1045/ - per piece. The main contention of the assessee is that the transaction value has not been rejected in terms of Section14 of the Customs Act and the Department cannot enhance the value on the basis of E.mail originating from UAE, which is not contemporaneous evidence. It is neither invoice nor proof of import by another importer in India from the same country, place and time. It was also pointed out that the e.mail showed different models of the product from the one which is declared in the Bill of Entry. It is stated that although the Show Cause Notice furnished 3 Bills of Entries of 9 -2 -2004, 9 -2 -2004 and 16 -10 -2003 in which value is shown as Rs. 820, Rs. 820/ - and Rs. 836.28 in respect of different models but the value has been enhanced on the basis of these Bills of Entries, which is referred in the Show Cause Notice. But the Revenue has proceeded to enhance it on the basis of the E.mail, which showed the price as Rs. 1045/ -. The learned Counsel relied on a large number of judgments and pointed out that the enhancement of value is against law and in terms of the following judgments.

(2.) THE learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal, in the case of Munna Gift Centre v. CC, Chennai, by Final Order Nos. 827 and 828/2004, dated 27 -4 -2004, [2004 (178) E.L.T. 310 (T)] has relied on a large number of Apex Court and High Court rulings and has set aside the enhancement of valuation on the ground that the value cannot be enhanced based on unrealistic terms without relying on contemporaneous import.

(3.) THE learned SDR defended the order and submitted that the E.mail was emanating from a dealer of the same goods dealing in UAE and it can be accepted as contemporaneous in nature.