9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Bill of Entry dated 29.8.2013 on the declared value. Such goods were cleared from the Customs after paying customs duty on 30.8.2013. 2. Subsequently, the appellants premises were put to search along with his residential premises, two shops and godown on 12.9.13 and 13.9.13 and the goods imported vide above Bill of Entry was put to seizure on the doubt of under valuation. Some other goods lying in the premises were also seized. 3. Thereafter the statements of Shri Ajeet Singh, partner of importer firm was recorded along with the statement of other persons. It is seen that during the course of investigations, the appellant took categorical stand that the goods other than the one imported vide Bill of Entry dated 29.8.2013 are locally pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der-valuation unless the revenue produce evidence to show that the value declared by the importer is not the correct value. Further, the adjudicating authority has enhanced the value based upon the NIDB data which has been held to be not correct method by various decisions of the judicial as also quasi-judicial authorities. As regards the goods other than the one covered by the Bill of Entry, learned advocate submits that the said goods were procured locally by them and merely because the seller of the goods has not been found to be at the address given in the sale bill, it cannot be presumed that the goods are illegally imported into India. Admittedly, the appellant has the sale bills as also sales tax return showing the purchase of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sole ground that NIDB data for the contemporaneous imports reflects higher value of identical goods. This fact shows that there is no independent evidence with the Revenue to first reject the transaction value. It is well settled law that the transaction value has to be admitted as the assessable value unless proved to be incorrect. For such purpose, proving the value to be wrong declaration, independent evidence is required and mere reference to NIDB data is not sufficient. It is held by various Courts that NIDB data cannot be made the basis for enhancement of the value. One such reference can be made to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi vs. Anshikha Overseas [2011 (274) ELT 546 (Tri-Del)] as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
