9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair The common facts in both the appeals are that the appellants are engaged in the import and trading of ordinary belts (PU Belts). The case of the department is that the appellant undervalued the said imported goods. The details such as B/E, The value, quantity, value declared, value enhanced and differential duty etc. is given below :- Liberty Enterprises (Table -1) B/E No & Date Quantity Assess- able Value at ₹ 18.58 per pc Basic duty at 10.00% CVD at 12% Edu Cess @ 2% HSS @ 1.00% Addi tional duty @ 4% Total amount of duty leviable Duty amount already paid Amount of difference in duty 728616905.11.14 132000 2452560 245256 323738 11380 5690 121545 707609 265767 441842 757438303.12.14 113400 2106972 210697 278120 9776 4888 104418 607900 188271 419629 769674915.12.14 132000 2452560 245256 323738 11380 5690 121545 707609 218801 488808 779813724.12.14 132900 2469282 246928 325945 11457 5729 122374 712433 225051 487382 79158366.1.15 135000 2508300 250830 331096 11639 5819 124307 723691 228429 495262 Total 942900 11989674 119896 1582637 55632 27816 594189 345924 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the goods declared by all the three parties are more or less same even though minor variation is there. Supplier in all the three cases is also the same party i.e. M/s. Wenzhou Yuanqiao Leather Goods Company Limited, China. We have dealt with identical issue in the case of SRR International and allowed the appeal of the said party vide order dated 04.12.2018 which is reproduced below:- "4. We have carefully gone through the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. We find that the assessable value of the goods i.e. PU Belts is enhanced by the customs authorities mainly on the basis of DGOV Circular, which is not an authority to dispute the valuation of the imported goods. It is necessary that if there is any doubt, an investigation has to be carried out on the basis of material available on record. In the present case, though the value was enhanced on the basis of NIDB data but no bill of entry of contemporaneous import was brought on record. It is also not established that price of which goods adopted by the customs in the present case is of the same quality, quantity and origin. Therefore, the NIDB data is also of no basis and relevant to the present case. Even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... price has to be in accordance with the relevant rules and subject to the provisions of Section 14(1). It is made clear that Section 14(1) and Section 14(1A) are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, the transaction value under Rule 4 must be the price paid or payable on such goods at the time and place of importation in the course of international trade. Section 14 is the deeming provision. It talks of deemed value. The value is deemed to be the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale, for delivery at the time and place of importation in the course of international trade where the seller and the buyer have no interest in the business of each other and the price is the sole consideration for the sale or for offer for sale. Therefore, what has to be seen by the Department is the value or cost of the imported goods at the time of importation, i.e., at the time when the goods reaches the customs barrier. Therefore, the invoice price is not sacrosanct. However, before rejecting the invoice price the Department has to give cogent reasons for such rejection. This is because the invoice price forms the basis of the transaction value. Therefore, before rejecting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s into discussion. 7. Applying the above tests to the facts of the present case, we find that there is no evidence from the side of the Department showing contemporaneous imports at higher price. On the contrary, the respondent importer has relied upon contemporaneous imports from the same supplier, namely, M/s. Pearl Industrial Company, Hong Kong, which indicates comparable prices of like goods during the same period of importation. This evidence has not been rebutted by the Department. Further, in the present case, the Department has relied upon export declaration made by the foreign supplier in Hong Kong. In this connection, we find that letters were addressed by the Department to the Indian Commission which, in turn, requested detailed investigations to be carried out by Hong Kong Customs Department. The Indian Commission has forwarded the export declarations in original to the Customs Department in India. One such letter is dated 19-9-1996. In the present case, the importer has alleged that the original declarations were with the Department. That certain portions of the originals were not shown to the importer despite the importer calling upon the adjudicating authority to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Department based on evidence, to show that the declared price is not the price at which like goods are sold or offered for sale ordinarily, which words occur in Section 14(1). Lastly, it is important to note that in the above decision of this Court in Eicher Tractors (supra) this Court has held that the Department has to proceed sequentially under Rules 5, 6 onwards and it is not open to the Department to invoke Rule 8 without sequentially complying with Rules 5, 6 and 7 even in cases where the transaction value is to be rejected under Rule 4. In the present case, the show cause notice indicates that the Department had invoked Rule 8 without complying with the earlier rules." 5. On the issue of market enquiry, for the purpose of value of imported goods, this Tribunal in the case of Selection Enterprises vs. CC, Chennai (supra) passed the following order:- "4. We have given a careful consideration to the submissions made by the appellants and the revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the original order on the ground that the department has followed the correct method in accordance with the valuation rules in enhancing the CIF value of the imported goods. The orig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis of NIDB data, the declared value cannot be enhanced. As regards the DGOV Circular, on the similar and standing order, issued by a Commissionerate, this Tribunal in the case of Om Drishian International Limited vs. CCE, New Delhi (supra) passed the following order:- "3. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the assessable value of the ball bearings. The lower authorities enhanced the value of the bearings based upon the Circular No. S/26-Misc.-2195/2005 VA, dated 24-9-2008 issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House, Nhava Sheva. Vide the said Circular, the value of different sizes of Chinese ball bearings was mentioned. Inasmuch as the said Circular was issued on the basis of average cost of raw material in the international market as well as on the basis of inputs provided by various importers, associations of manufacturers and traders, All India ball bearings, merchant associations, the floor prices were fixed accordingly. Having gone through the impugned orders, we find that the Revenue has solely relied upon the said Circular issued by the Commissioner of Customs. There is no other evidence to reject the transaction value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
