9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lls of Entry filed in the past. The reason recorded in the impugned order is that in the past also the appellant has imported such goods. The Revenue has undertaken no investigation into the value of goods imported vide the 52 Bills of Entry - In the absence of any investigation into the value of the goods covered under these Bills of Entry, the transaction value already accepted cannot be interfered with. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Custom Appeal No. 50747 of 2017 - Final Order No. 50948/2018 - Dated:- 14-3-2018 - Mr. Justice ( Dr. ) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member ( Technical ) Sh. Priyadarshi Manish, Advocate for the appellant Sh. R. K. Manjhi, AR for the respondent ORD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded. 3. During the course of investigation, the Department further noticed that the same importer had filed 52 Bills of Entry in the past during the period 18.01.2011 to 26.02.2013 for clearance of similar goods. The value of goods covered by these 52 Bills of Entry were also enhanced and differential duty demanded in the impugned order. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been filed. 4. With the above background, we heard Sh. Priyadarshi Manish, Id. Counsel for the appellant as well as Sh. R. K. Manjhi, Id. AR appearing for the Revenue. 5. The argument of the ld. Counsel for the appellant is summarised below: (i) The Department was not justified in enhancing the value of the goods covered by the two Bills o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods have been imported in the past also, whose values were significantly less than the NIDB data for contemporaneous import. 5. We have heard both sides and perused the record. 6. The importer had filed three Bills of Entry on 26.02.2013. The goods covered by Bill of Entry No. 9413449 has been cleared after enhancement of value and are not part of the present dispute. The goods covered by the other two Bills of Entry have been held to be undervalued and differential duty has been demanded. The reason cited by the Adjudicating Authority for rejecting the declared transaction values under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules is that the contemporaneous NIDB data indicates import values which are higher than the declared value. Conseq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice at which such or like goods are originally sold, or offered for sale, for delivery at the time and place of importation in the course of international trade. The special circumstances have been statutorily particularized in the Customs Valuation Rules and in the absence of these exceptions, it is mandatory for customs to accept the price actually paid or payable for the goods in the particular transaction. 9. The Tribunal in the case of DM International (supra), respectfully following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. (supra), held as under:- 5. We find that there is no dispute that the customs has power to reject the transaction value and enhance the assessable value in terms of Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... market enquiry has no basis and is set aside. 10. The Adjudicating Authority has also reopened the assessment made in respect of 52 Bills of Entry filed in the past. The reason recorded in the impugned order is that in the past also the appellant has imported such goods. The Revenue has undertaken no investigation into the value of goods imported vide the 52 Bills of Entry. The demand for custom differential duty in respect of these Bills of Entry has been made by invoking the suppression clause in Section 28 of the Customs Act. But from the show cause notice we find no specific wilful act of misstatement or suppression of facts or collusion on the part of the import has been recorded. Hence, we are of the view that the re-opening of as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
