2019 (5) TMI 1357 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - PU Belts - enhancement of value based on NIDB data - HELD THAT - In respect of the same product, supplied by the same supplier M/s. Wenzhou Wensen Leather Company Limited, Zhejiang, China, the Customs department made out various cases for enhancement of the value on the same facts and law point - In the case of M/S. SRR INTERNATIONAL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUNDRA 2018 (12) TMI 392 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , M/S. SUMIT ENTERPRISES, M/S. LIBERTY ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUNDRA 2018 (12) TMI 447 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , this Tribunal has allowed the appeals of the assessee. Since the common issue and facts are involved, we need not to discuss the same again and again. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Enhancement of the value of imported PU Belts based on NIDB data.

Analysis:

1. Enhancement of Value Issue:
The case revolved around the enhancement of the value of imported PU Belts from a specific supplier in China based on NIDB data. The appellant's counsel highlighted previous cases where similar appeals were allowed by the Tribunal for other parties importing the same product from the same supplier. The Tribunal acknowledged the consistency in its decisions regarding such cases and noted that the Customs department had made similar enhancement cases for various importers dealing with the same product from the same supplier. By following the precedent set in previous judgments, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.

2. Legal Precedents and Consistency in Decisions:
The appellant's counsel referenced specific cases where the Tribunal had ruled in favor of importers facing similar enhancement issues with products from the same supplier. Notably, the Tribunal had allowed appeals in cases involving M/s. SRR International, M/s. Sumit Enterprises, and M/s. Liberty Enterprises. The Tribunal, in this instance, emphasized the importance of consistency in decisions when dealing with identical products and suppliers. By aligning with the previous judgments, the Tribunal maintained a coherent approach in handling such matters, ultimately leading to the allowance of the present appeal.

3. Decision and Rationale:
After considering the arguments presented by both sides and reviewing the case records, the Tribunal found that the current appeal shared commonalities with previous cases where appeals were allowed. Given the identical nature of the product, supplier, and legal issues, the Tribunal opted not to delve into the same facts repeatedly. By applying the precedent established in earlier decisions, particularly those involving M/s. SRR International, M/s. Sumit Enterprises, and M/s. Liberty Enterprises, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and grant relief to the appellant. The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 01.03.2019.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal precedents, and the rationale behind the Tribunal's decision regarding the enhancement of the value of imported PU Belts based on NIDB data.