9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 866X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. CC (Import) Mumbai [2016 (3) TMI 888 - CESTAT MUMBAI]. The transaction value cannot be rejected on the basis of contemporaneous value of steel scrap in the absence of the details of such cotemporaneous imports and relied by the authorities below without bringing the evidence of undervaluation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/54398-54413/2015-DB - Final Order No. 61992-62007 - Dated:- 17-10-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member ( Judicial ) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member ( Technical ) Shri Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Vijay Gupta, A.R. for the Respondent ORDER Per : Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeal against the impugned orders. As, all the appeals are arising out of a common issue, therefore, all are disposed of by a common order. 2. The facts of the case are that appellant is an importer of re-rollable steel scraps, falling under tariff heading 72044900. The appellant imported various consignments of re-rollable steel scraps and filed bills of entry. At the time of assessment of bills of entry, some doubts about bonafide and truthfulness of value declared by the importer were raised verbally. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and considered the submissions. We find that in this case, one of the reasons for rejecting the appeals filed by the appellant is that appellant has not protested the enhanced value. In fact, at no point of time the appellant have any occasion to lodge a protest. The bills of entry were filed and the same have been assessed and the appellant has paid the duty to avoid detention and demurrage charges. At no point of time, the appellant has accepted the enhanced value or have offered to the authorities below to enhance the value. The case law relied on by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order have no relevance to the facts of this case as in the case of Vikas Spinners (supra), the appellant has agreed for the enhanced price and has signed an affirmation on the back of the bill of entry and the same is not in the case in hand. In the case of Asian Hotels Limited (supra), the importer, in reply to the show cause notice accepted the proposed loading of value and waiver personal hearing. In the case in hand, no show cause notice is issued to the appellant nor it was brought to the knowledge of the appellant that the adjudicating aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntemporaneous imports were accepted by the department in respect of some importers. We reproduce the findings of this Bench in the case of Ajay Exports (supra). (c) We also note that the adjudicating authority has refused to look at other contemporaneous imports, which are not 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 rules 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 underva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also on wrong footing as the details lack the quantity of imports, the country of origin and manufacturer of the goods. In the absence of any such details, in our considered view, the same cannot be held as contemporaneous imports to reject the value declared by the appellant-importer. Further, in the case of Kuber India vs. CC, Jaipur 2016 (340) ELT 404 (Tri. Del.), again the Tribunal has observed as under:- 6. We find that the above reasoning and finding of the original authority is completely devoid of legal merit. First of all, the original authority did not record any reason for rejecting the invoice value. Apparently, he was guided by a general alert issued by the DRI in 2008 and also certain guidelines issued by the Board for assessment of used machinery vide Circular No. 4/2008-Cus., dated 12-2-2008. We find neither the alert nor the circular can substitute the legal provisions of Section 3 read with the Valuation Rules of 2007. Further, the lower authority invoked Rule 9 which talks about residual method of valuation. Here it has to be noted that the imported goods were very old and used. At least two machines are admittedly manufactured in 1982, i.e., before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sufficient force in the arguments of the appellants that the Revenue is not able to prove any undervaluation or mis-declaration and thus able to convincingly reject the transaction value declared by the importer. There cannot be any case for enhancement of value just by citing importation of contemporary period by other importers through different contracts unless Revenue is able to reject the transaction value strictly as per provisions of law including the provisions of Customs Valuation Rules as applicable. In the case of CC, Vishakhapatnam vs. Aggarwal Industries Limited 2011 (272) ELT 641 (S.C.) the Hon ble Apex Court has held as under:- On a plain reading of Sections 14(1) and 14(1A), it is clear that the value of any goods chargeable to ad valorem duty is deemed to be the price as referred to in Section 14(1) of the Act. Section 14(1) is a deeming provision as it talks of deemed value of such goods. The determination of such price has to be in accordance with the relevant rules and subject to the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Act. Conjointly read, both Section 14(1) of the Act and Rule 4 of CVR 1988 provide that in the absence of any of the special circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
