Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.21 seconds)Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. And Ors on 15 June, 2007
In
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Bangalore, vs. M/S Brindavan
Beverages (P) Ltd., (MANU/SC/2645/2007), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had observed as follows:
Sounds N. Images vs Collector Of Customs on 19 January, 2000
6. We find that the non-supply of the Bill of Entry relied upon to
enhance the price of the imported goods and lacunae in the analytical
report dated 30.07.2009 given by the Spice Board, Cochin, regarding
5
C/42168/2013
the grade of the goods is fatal to the department's case. It is settled
law that the onus to prove that the declared price did not reflect the
true transaction value is always on the Department. Further NIDB data
can be a guideline for the customs to arrive at the value of the goods
but the NIDB data cannot be applied directly unless the value given
therein falls within the parameters of identical goods or similar goods
as stated in section 14 of the Customs Act 1962 and the Customs
Valuation Rules. As stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is always
for the Customs Authorities to establish by methods known to law and
in a satisfactory manner that the value of imported goods is not what
the importer says it is and what that value actually is. That onus cannot
be shifted to the importer. [See: SOUNDS N. IMAGES Vs
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [2000 (117) E.L.T. 538 (S.C.)]. Merely
basing the valuation of goods on the acceptance given by the importer
cannot be accepted as good evidence or of satisfying the provisions of
law.
1