9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 904X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es have erred in rejecting the value declared by the appellant. We are of the considered view that the impugned order is unsustainable on the above reasoning. The impugned order is set aside upholding the value declared by appellant as correct transaction value and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any. - C/86522/14 & C/85387 to 85389/15-Mum - A/87282-87285/16/STB - Dated:- 29-3-2016 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) and Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Vipin Kumar Jain, Advocate with Shri Roshil Nichani, Advocate for Appellant Shri Ahibaran, Addl. Commr. (A.R.) for Respondent ORDER All these appeals are filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 469 to 472 (Gr.IV)/2014(JNCH)/IMP-448 to 451 da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enhanced the value of the goods based upon some contemporaneous imports. He would draw our attention to reliance placed by the Revenue on the contemporaneous imports, submits Bill of Entry are not given, and the goods were not originating from the same place and also not during the material period. It is his submission that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Aggarwal Industries Ltd. - 2012 (1) SCC 186, has held that Apprising Officer has to first reject the transaction value giving reasons to doubt the transaction value. It is his submission that the transaction value declared by the appellant has to be first rejected on cogent material to show that contemporaneous imports were on higher value or import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that the details of the contemporaneous imports relied upon by the Revenue in respect of Bills of Entry dated 11.04.2012 and 09.01.2013 cannot be considered as contemporaneous value as the imports by the appellants are vide Bills of Entry dated 30.01.2013, 22.03.2013, 05.03.2013 18.06.2013; it can be seen from the fact of the case that the details relied upon by the Revenue as contemporaneous imports value is not matching with the material period when imports took place in this case. On a specific query from the bench, as to name of the exporter, country of origin and quantity imported, we were informed that these details are absent in the records. In view of this, in our considered view, reliance placed on these details as contemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot to be formed on a mere suspicion or speculation. 17. We may hasten to add that although strict rules of evidence do not apply to adjudication proceedings under the Act, yet the Adjudicating Authority has to examine the probative value of the documents on which reliance is sought to be placed by the revenue. It is well settled that the onus to prove undervaluation is on the revenue but once the revenue discharges the burden of proof by producing evidence of contemporaneous imports at a higher price, the onus shifts to the importer to establish that the price indicated in the invoice relied upon by him is correct. 6. In Eicher Tractors Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the Tribunal, this Court had held that the principle for valuation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion falls within the exceptions mentioned in Rules 4(2)(c) to (h), the Department is bound to assess the duty on the transaction value. It was further held that Rule 4 is directly relatable to Section 14(1) of the Act. Section 14(1) read with Rule 4 provides that the price paid by the importer in the ordinary course of commerce shall be taken to be the value in the absence of any special circumstances indicated in Section 14(1). Therefore, what should be accepted as the value for the purpose of assessment is the price actually paid for the particular transaction, unless the price is unacceptable for the reasons set out in Rule 4(2). [Also See : Rabindra Chandra Paul v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)3, SCC] 18. Applying the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fell within any of the situations enumerated in Rule 4(2) of CVR, 1988. It is manifest from the show cause notice, extracted in para 3 supra, that the contract value was not acceptable to the Adjudicating Authority in terms of Section 14(1) of the Act read with Rule 4 of CVR, 1988 merely because by the time actual shipment took place in August 2001, international price of the oil had increased drastically. No other reason has been ascribed to reject the transaction value under Rule 4(1) except the drastic increase in price of the commodity in the international market and the difference in price in the invoices in relation to the goods imported under contracts entered by the respondents in the month of August 2001. In our considered view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
