9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 888X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the adjudicating authority has relied upon only the statement of Shri S.K. Dhawan to hold that the valves were having brass and zinc content as mentioned. The adjudicating authority has rejected the transaction value as filed by the appellant without any reasoning or finding. The submission of appellant importer that they had submitted details of contemporaneous imports of the same goods and the value seems to be more or less is same as declared by the appellant importer is not addressed to and also the adjudicating authority has not recorded a single sentence of finding on such contemporaneous import detail given by the appellant. Also the appellant importer had submitted details of contemporaneous imports of the same goods and the value seems to be more or less is same as declared by the appellant importer is not addressed to and also the adjudicating authority has not recorded a single sentence of finding on such contemporaneous import detail given by the appellant. The adjudicating authority has come to a conclusion that there was under-valuation as the appellant importer did not produce the manufacturer’s invoice nor catalogue which is totally not in consonance with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nitiated an investigation. After recording various statements and scrutiny of the documents, Departmental Officers came to a conclusion that there was under-valuation of the consignments imported by the appellant importers during the relevant period as the price shown on LME Bulletin for Brass and Zinc scrap was higher than the value of Ball Valves which were imported and the statement of Shri S.K. Dhawan also agreed that there was under valuation. Show-cause notice dated 06.05.2011 was issued. All the appellants contested the show-cause notice on merits, limitation on the ground also there being no contemporaneous import shown by the Revenue. The adjudicating authority after following due process of law, did not agree with the contentions raised by the appellants, confirmed the demand of differential duty with interest and also imposed penalties. Further the adjudicating authority upheld the liability for confiscation of the imported goods in both the cases. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for all the appellants, after taking us through the entire case records would submit that the adjudicating authority has adopted a very novel way of re-determination of the value of the imported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. A/3972/15/CB dated 23.12.2015 for the proposition that contemporaneous imports were discarded, accordingly requirement of Rule 5(3) of Customs Rules were validated and the appeal was allowed. He would submit that a similar issue was decided by this Bench in the bunch of appeals in the case of Ajay Export and Ors. vide final order No. A/3446-3470/15/CB dated 20.10.2015 wherein it was held that contemporaneous imports price needs to be considered for arriving at the correct value. 4. Learned D.R. would submit that the finished goods imported by the appellant i.e. valves which have to be manufactured wherein the cost of raw material, manufacturing cost and other costs are considered for the purpose of valuation. He would submit that the raw material price of brass scrap and zinc scrap is more than the value of the imported consignment which would indicate that there was very heavy under-valuation. He would submit that such under-valuation is confirmed by Shri S.K. Dhawan in a statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 hence the argument put forth by the learned Counsel needs to be discarded as Shri S.K. Dhawan has not retracted the statement. It is his furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch indicates that the content as recorded by the adjudicating authority is supported by any evidence. The adjudicating authority has relied on the statement given by S.K. Dhawan. In our considered view this finding of the adjudicating authority is not in consonance of the law. There is nothing on record to indicate that samples were drawn from the consignment and sent for testing to Dy. Chief Chemist and Examiner of the Department to ascertain the contents of brass and zinc. It is also surprising to note that the adjudicating authority has relied upon only the statement of Shri S.K. Dhawan to hold that the valves were having brass and zinc content as mentioned. 7.2 Secondly, we find that the adjudicating authority has rejected the transaction value as filed by the appellant without any reasoning or finding. The only finding recorded by the adjudicating authority is that the said values are unrealistic and ridiculously low. To arrive at such finding the adjudicating authority has not brought on record any contemporaneous import of the same items. The provisions of Customs Act, 1962 are very clear on this point inasmuch as in order to reject the transaction value the least that is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the subject matter of the present show cause notice on the ground that there was gross undervaluation being done by the trade. We find that if the value of contemporaneous imports were accepted and the transaction value in those case are not doubted by the revenue in the assessment orders, it is not understandable why the said values could not have been used for the purposes of comparing the same with the value of the consignments in question in these appeals. It is also said along that the Department has to first reject the transaction value and then follow the rules as laid down from rule 5 to 9 of the valuation rules in order to arrive at the value for discharge of Customs duty. From the entire records we find that this does not seen to have been done. In addition, we find that the documents which have come from the foreign source i.e. Indian embassy, Moscow cannot bring home the charge of undervaluation in the case of Bhatia Group and Sunderlal Group as none of these documents which are relied upon and received from foreign source pertain to these groups; even as far as Ratan Lal Group is concerned these documents cannot be relied upon for the reasons set out hereinabove. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
