9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcluding Rules 5 to 8 with valid reasons - there is no evidence of contemporaneous imports put forward so as to hold that the respondents have declared incorrect transaction value. The department has failed to prove that the goods imported by the respondents are of the same quality of the goods referred in the DRI Alert Circular. That being so, the rejection of transaction value is not acceptable - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/135, 136 and 322/2009 - Final Order Nos.42721-42723/2017 - Dated:- 6-11-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Appellant Shri B. Satish Sundar and Dr. S. Krishnanandh, Advocates for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the demand of differential duty. Hence the department has filed these appeals. 3. On behalf of Revenue, ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy reiterated the grounds of appeal. He submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the enhancement of value mainly on three grounds:- (a) That there is no ground put forward by the department for rejecting the transaction value; (b) There is no allegation that the buyer is related to seller and therefore Rule 7A cannot be invoked without first excluding Rules 5 to 8 with valid reasons; (c) The enhancement of value is merely based on NIDB data. He submitted that the imports were taken up for scrutiny on the basis of DRI Alert Circular which was relating to import of PU Coate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rgued the matter. They strongly argued that the department has rejected the transaction value without any ground and the enhancement is done on the basis of NIDB data which has been held in various decisions to be not acceptable for enhancement of declared value. The ld. counsel submitted that on similar set of facts, in regard to import of PU Coated fabrics itself, the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Vs. DM International - 2013 (289) ELT 169 (Tri. Del.) had held that department cannot enhance the value on the sole basis of NIDB data. He has also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Vs. Polyglass Acrylic Mfg. Co. Ltd. - 2014 (301) ELT 545 . It is also su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the DRI Alert Circular. That being so, the rejection of transaction value is not acceptable. Further, the enhancement is solely based on the NIDB data. The Tribunal in the various decisions relied by the ld. counsel for the respondent has held that value cannot be enhanced merely on the basis of NIDB data. Ld. AR has made an effort to argue that the said decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case, since the facts of the case are different. We find that the ratios laid down in the said decisions are squarely applicable to the issue under consideration. The Tribunal in the said judgment has categorically held that NIDB data cannot be a basis for enhancement of declared value. Following the same, we are of the opinion that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
