9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C/57456/2013-CU(DB) - Final Order No. C/A/53138/2017-CU(DB) - Dated:- 25-4-2017 - Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (J) and B. Ravichandran, Member (T) Shri N.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Maji, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : B. Ravichandran, Member (T)]. - The appeal is against order dated 6-3-2013 of Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, New Delhi. The appellants imported Triglycidyl Isocyanurate (TGIC) from China and filed bill of entry on 23-11-2010. The unit price declared for Customs duty is US$ 1.05 per K.G. The Assessing Officer entertained a doubt regarding correctness of the said declared value and the importer was asked to justify the value in view of the fact that during the material ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been accepted and clearance made. The ld. Counsel also pleaded for waiver of fine and penalty as there is no ground for confiscation of goods or imposition of penalty on the importer. He also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in Topsia Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs (Import Seaport), Chennai 2015 (330) E.L.T. 799 (Tri.-Chennai) to submit that NIDB data cannot be automatically adopted for valuation of imported items. 3. The ld. AR contested the appeal by stating that nowhere in import document the appellant mentioned any grade or quality of the imported product. Their claim that the quality is 4th grade is not supported. The Department relied upon large number of bills of entry covering import of same items during the rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re cannot be any illegality in adopting the price for assessment. Regarding the decision of the Tribunal in Topsia Estates Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we find the product there is PU Coated Fabrics apparently having variation in quality, size, quantity etc. In such circumstances, the Tribunal held relying on NIDB data without any corroboration regarding the correctness of comparison is not justifiable. In the present case, we are dealing with a defined chemical with no evidence of variation in grade or quality. In such situation, a difference of almost 500% in value cannot be brushed aside. After having gone through the impugned order and the appeal papers, we find no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. (Dicta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
