9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rchased by them have been very high, when compared with the quantities shown in the NIDB Data. When the appellants are importing regularly at Cochin Port, and import 80-100 containers per month, the said importers definitely can negotiate to import at better/ lower price from the manufacturer supplier. - the case of enhancement of value are merely based on NIDB data, when such documents relating NIDB data were not even supplied to the appellants, thus not following principles of Natural Justice - Customs did not have justifiable evidence to reject the invoice values of the subject imports. The decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Vs. DM International [2013 (5) TMI 549 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] relied upon where it was hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C/22347/15 M/s Sunil Steels 42,033/- Jan 2015 2. Since the issue involved in all these appeals is common, the same are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The matter concerns with the enhancement of value of the goods namely Polished Porcelain Tiles falling under CTH 69079090. The value has been enhanced solely on the basis of NIDB data. 4. The appellants have been represented by the learned advocate, Shri M. Balagopal and the Respondent, Revenue has been represented by the learned A.R., Shri J. Harish. 5. Based on the Appeal Memoranda , the learned advocate inter alia submits as follows : (i) The appellants produced the documents like Proforma I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (330) E.L.T. 709 (Tri.-Chennai)] Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Vs. Nath International {2013 (289) E.L.T. 305 (Tri.-Del.)] Anand International Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Amritsar [2015 (321) E.L.T. 273] Commissioner of Customs, Ne Delhi Vs. Ganesh Trading Co. [2013 (297) E.L.T. 75] 6. The learned A.R. reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 7. We have carefully considered the facts of the case, submissions of both sides along with case laws cited. 8. We find that the Revenue authorities enhance the value giving the reasons that the declared values are low, when compared with the comparable quantities of similar goods. The Revenue authorities also mention that comparison with identical g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following principles of Natural Justice. Consequently said orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. We are of the considered view that the Customs did not have justifiable evidence to reject the invoice values of the subject imports. 8.2. We find enough support for our conclusion made above from various decisions pronounced by higher judicial fora. The CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Vs. DM International [2013 (289) E.L.T. 169 (Tri.- Del.)] inter alia observes as under : 5. We find that there is no dispute that the customs has power to reject the transaction value and enhance the assessable value in terms of Customs Valuation Rules. However, such rejection of transaction value and enhancemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o material available. The Tribunal consistently observed that the declared value cannot be enhanced merely on the basis of NIDB data. It is noticed that the value of impugned goods varies widely on the basis of quality, size, quantity, etc., and it is contended by the appellant before the lower appellate authority that the declared value of the same goods were accepted by the Department at Kolkata Port. We also find force in the submission of the learned Advocate that in this particular situation, Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules would not be invoked. 8.2.2. Further, CESTAT, Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III Vs. Om Sai Ram Trading [2009 (241) E.L.T. 536 (Tri.-Del.)] inter alia observes as under : 5 .. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
