9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same was accepted by all Customs Houses. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the matters found as follows :- 15. I have carefully gone through the records of the case, the grounds taken in the appeal petition and also the submissions made during the course of personal hearing. 16. The issue to be determined is whether it is justifiable to enhance the value of the impugned goods to US $ 1.05 per kg on the basis of an evidence of bill of entry No. 131242 in which the transaction value was declared by another importer of similar goods at US $ 1.05 per kg. 17. While analysing the evidence on record, I find that apart from the aforesaid bill of entry No. 131242, there is no other transaction covered by any other import bill of entry to suggest the value of similar goods as US $ 1.05 per kg. In other words, the basis of enhancement adopted by the lower authority is on a solitary evidence relating to the value of US $ 1.05 per kg shown in bill of entry No. 131242. 18. In this connection, the appellants have placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Basant Industries v. Addl. Collector of Customs reported in 1986 (81) E.L.T. 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s would not ordinarily be comparable. The contention of the lower authority that the importer has not contended anywhere that the goods are different or inferior in quality compared to the goods imported by M/s. Indomass Trades Trans (P) Ltd. does not appear to be tenable, because, the appellants apparently would have no access to ascertain the nature of used clothing imported by M/s. Indomass Trades Trans (P) Ltd. 22. I have also taken note of the contention of the appellants that valuation of similar/identical goods is being taken at US $ 0.45 per kg at Kolkata Mumbai Custom House. In the case of imports noticed below US $ 0.45 per kg, the value are being enhanced to US $ 0.45 per kg for the purpose of assessment in Mumbai Kolkata. In support of this contention, the appellants have placed on record the adjudication orders referred to at para 6, 14(c), (d), (e) (f) hereinabove, wherein the values of similar/identical consignments have been enhanced to US $ 0.45 per kg. 23. The appellants have also indicated that in the case of M/s. Noble Enterprises, Kolkata, the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata vide order Kol/Cus/Port/Sl. No. 23, dated 6-7-2001 has adopted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... identical goods for the purpose of assessment, and under the facts and circumstances of the present case, and by applying the ratio of the Apex Court in the case of Basant Industries v. Addl. Collector of Customs reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.) and Hon ble CEGAT s decision in the case of M/s. Goodluck Industries v. Commissioner reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 818 (Tribunal), I hold that a stray evidence of bill of entry No. 131242 has no evidenciary value for the purpose of enhancement of value of such imports to US $ 1.05 per kg, and is hereby discarded as not tenable in the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove. 26. It is observed that the appellants have declared the value of the impugned goods at US $ 0.32 per kg for the purpose of assessment. Prima facie this value is not acceptable, and hence, the value of the impugned goods would merit enhancement to US $ 0.45 per kg, on par with the practice being adopted by the Custom Houses as indicated in the preceding paras. 27. Accordingly, I hereby set aside the impugned order passed by the lower authority, and direct that the value of impugned goods be enhanced from US $ 0.32 per kg to US $ 0.45 per kg for the purpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence of significant price fluctuation. 3. We have heard both sides and considered the matter and find :- (a) The Deputy Commissioner on the following identical findings in three cases :- I have gone through all the case records and also the submissions made by the importer. The importer has not contended anywhere that their goods are different or inferior in quality to the goods imported by M/s. Indomass Traders and Trans (P) Ltd. They have also submitted that the supplier in both the cases are same. Thus, the goods in present case are same. Thus, the goods in present case and the goods in the case of M/s. Indomass Traders Trans (P) Ltd. are very much comparable. Thereafter he has rejected the declared value as per Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules, 1988 and has ordered the enhancement of the value from the declared value to US $ 1.05 per kg under Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules, 1988. The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside this determination after recording the plea before him - (i) The invoices for the imports at US $ 1.05 per kg were not supplied to the other importers. (ii) Burden lies on the department to prove under valuation where imported goods ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
