9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the enhancement not sustainable and is to be set aside. In respect of Items in S.Nos.8,14,17, the enhancement is made on the highest value of contemporaneous imports - Held that: - sub Rule (3) provides that in applying this Rule, if more than one transaction value of identical goods is found, the lowest of such value shall be used to determine the value of imported goods - following the decision in appellant own case as mentioned, the enhancement of value is set aside - the matter has to be remanded to the adjudicating authority to re-determine the value on the basis of lowest value of the contemporaneous imports. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. - C/399/2009 - FINAL ORDER No. 41966/2017 - Dated:- 23-8-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri S.Murugappan, Advocate : For the Appellant Shri B.Balamurugan AC (AR) : For the Respondent ORDER The appellants filed Bill of Entry dated 17.12.2007 for the import of goods parts of assembled machineries classifying the same under Customs Tariff Act 84314900 and declared the value as ₹ 12,92,315.80. The goods were declared to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Circle Assy. 1 275 7617.5 10 Ex-60-2 Swing Circle Assy. 7 275 7617.5 11 Ex-100-1 swing Circle Assy. 10 450 12465 12 Ex-120 Idler Assy. 6 85 2354.5 13 Ex-120 Track Shoe 100 11.3 313.01 14 Ex-200-1 Track Link 10 780 21606 15 Ex-300 Track shoe 300 14.5 401.65 16 Ex-300-1 Idler Assy. 4 105 2908.5 17 Ex-300 1 Bot Roller 48 55 1523.5 18 Ex-300 -1 Swing Circle Assy. 1 900 24930 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3878 7756 3878 The value of items for which the value declared by the importer is rejected under Rule 12 and determined under Rule 9 of Customs Valuation Rule 2007 as follows : Sl.No. Description of goods Value declared by the Importer Value proposed in INR Value determined 1 Recoil Spring 3036410 2077.5 5922 5922 2 Recoil Spring 3078696 6158.58 6158.58 6098 3 207-939-3120 Adaptor 332.4 419.72 419.72 4 Ex-60 Track Shoe 263.15 320 320 5 Ex-60-1 Swing Circle Assy. 7617.5 28684 19792 6 Ex-60-2 Swing Circle Assy. 7617.5 28684 19154 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,13,15,19 and 20, the value has been enhanced on the basis of NIDB data only.That in several judgements, it has been held that NIDB data cannot be the basis for enhancement of value and therefore such enhancement requires to be set aside. In respect of item Nos.9,10 and 18, the original authority has admitted that relevant NIDB data is not available, but however has proceeded to enhance the value basing upon the NIDB data of import of goods in which the country of origin is different i.e. Japan. In respect of Item Nos.1,12 and 21, there is no NIDB data in regard to the goods.But attempt is made by the department to enhance the value based on description of goods of other models. Similarly there was no NIDB data available for the goods shown under Item Nos.16, but enhanced without basis. In respect of items in S.No.8,14, 17, the valuation is done on the basis of contemporaneous imports.But the adjudicating authority instead of taking lowest value of such contemporaneous imports, has adopted the highest value which is erroneous. In respect of Item No.22, the Ld.Counsel submitted that the enhancement is made on the basis of the Bill of Entry / Import made by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which we hereby do. In respect of Item No.22, the enhancement is based on the enhanced value of the Bill of Entry which was in dispute in the appellant s own case in Appeal No.C/192/08. The enhancement having been set aside by this Bench vide Final Order stated (supra), the enhancement in respect of Item No.22 also requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. 10. In respect of Items in S.Nos.8,14,17, the enhancement is made on the contemporaneous imports. But however, the adjudicating authority has taken the highest value on such contemporaneous imports, whereas the law prescribes to adopt the lowest. Thus following the decision taken by us in the appellants own case, in the Final Order stated (supra), we hold that the enhancement requires to be set aside and the matter has to be remanded to the adjudicating authority to re-determine the value on the basis of lowest value of the contemporaneous imports. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by setting aside the enhancement of value in regard to items 1,2,6,9,10,11,12,13,15,18,19,20,21 and 22. The appeal is partly remanded in respect of items 8,14 and 17 by setting aside the enhancement and remanding the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
