9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 987X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essed value. Therefore, the said value cannot be said as the value contemporaneous import. The value of imported goods in question cannot be enhanced on the basis of DRI alert and the basis of assessed bill of entry - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/3167-3176, 4179-4182/2012 - A/61168-61181/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 19-6-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. Prem Ranjan, Advocate for the Appellant Sh. Tarun Kumar, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per : Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeal against the impugned orders wherein the transaction value was rejected. As there is a common issue, therefore, all the appeals are disposed off by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue is more than the transaction value has shown by the appellants, therefore, the value relied by the Ld. Commissioner (A) in the bills of entry which has been assessed and declared is not reliable. To support his contention he relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Sedna Impex India P. Ltd. vide Final order No. A/61032-61049/2016 dated 03.08.2016. He also submits that no speaking order under section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 has been passed. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants further submits that a similar issue has been decided by this Tribunal in the case of Soir International Vs. CC, Delhi-IV vide Order No.A/60170-60178/2017-CU[DB] dt. 11.01.2017 wherein it has been held that on the basis of DRI al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Customs Act, 1962, the value cannot be enhanced. Further, we find that the similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Sedna Impex India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) wherein it is a case of import of polyester knitted fabrics and there also on the basis of DRI alert, the value of goods were sought to be enhanced. In that case this Tribunal has examined the issue and observed as under: 7. On hearing the parties, we find that the value of the imported goods has been enhanced on the grounds: (a) On the basis of DRI alert and (b) On the basis of assessed bill of entry of similar goods. 8. We find that the initially there was DRI alert that the overseas suppliers are undervaluing the value of the goods in ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment has assessed identical goods at lower values ranging from US $ 1070 to US $ 1090 PMT, whereas the value declared by the appellant is higher at US $ 1100 PMT. Further, the price adopted for comparison is not a declared value but an enhanced value by the Customs. The values declared in those transactions ranged from US $ 1050 to US $ 1090 PMT. In the case laws cited by the appellant, this Tribunal has already held that for the purpose of comparison to contemporaneous imports, the value to be adopted is not the value arrived at after loading by the department but the value that has been declared and accepted without any enhancement. Besides, we notice that no evidence has been led by the Revenue in the instant case to counter the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the basis of value of assessed value of bill of entry. 12. Further, we take note of the fact that similar goods have been imported by the other importers. In whose case the value was enhanced by adopting the contemporaneous import of assessed bill of entry and the enhancement of value was set aside by this Tribunal in the case of Maruti Fabrics Impex vide Order No. 51690-51694/2016 dated 27.04.2016 is not justified without rejecting the transaction value of the same and observed as under: 6. As regard the second issue, we find that Commissioner (Appeals) has gone into detailed examination of the provisions of Section 14 as also the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. As rightly observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
