9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een passed by the adjudicating authority. Thus, the LME price cannot be the basis to enhance the declared price, in the absence of any contemporaneous value of the imported goods is available on record - the transaction value has been enhanced arbitrarily without any evidence on record. The declared value of the imported goods declared by the appellants cannot be accepted - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal Nos. 53827-53833, 53861-53862 of 2018, 50283-50288 of 2019, 50290-50307of 2019 - FINAL ORDER NOS. 50555-50587/2019 - Dated:- 8-4-2019 - MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. C.L. MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Jatin Singhal, Advocate for the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g on behalf of the appellant submits that the Bills of Entry are fully in consonance with the price charged in the respective invoices by the foreign supplier and no allegation has been brought on record to show that appellants have paid any amount, over and above, the value declared in the statutory documents. He further, submits that the issue has been examined by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (12) TMI 738-SC wherein the enhanced value was set aside by the Hon ble Apex Court. He further submits that the price enhanced is done on the basis of guidelines issued by DGOV Alert Circular No.14/2005 dated 16.12.2005 and on the basis of LME price. The said DGOU Circular cannot override the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the relevant time. 6.1 The said issue has been examined by this Tribunal in the case of Bharathi Rubber Lining Allied Services P. Ltd. (supra), wherein this Tribunal observed as under:- 5.4 The lower appellate authority has rejected the price by placing the reliance place on the DGOV Circular on the ground that in terms of the Hon ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Varsha Plastics (cited supra), the assessment under the provisions of Customs Valuation Rules cannot be given a go-by and the Valuation Rules will prevail over the departmental instructions on the subject matter. The Hon ble Apex Court in the said case held as follows : The valuation of the imported goods w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Rules. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta v. South India Television - 2007 (214) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) had held that casting suspicion on invoice produced by the importer is not sufficient to reject it as evidence of value. The invoice price is not sacrosanct but before rejecting the invoice price, the department has to give cogent reasons for such rejection. The assessing authority has to examine each and every case on merits for deciding its validity and he cannot form a view to reject all transaction values on the basis of some general criteria based on DGOV Circular and on that basis load the value of imports uniformly across board. This Tribunal in the case of FSP (India) Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra) held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the Bills of Entry can be discarded in case it is found that there are any imports of identical goods or similar goods at a higher price at around the same time or if the buyers and sellers are related to each other. In order to invoke such a provision it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to give reasons as to why the transaction value declared in the Bills of Entry was being rejected; to establish that the price is not the sole consideration; and to give the reasons supported by material on the basis of which the Assessing Officer arrives at his own assessable value. 6.4 We also take note of the fact that as per letter issued by Department of Revenue F No. 387/W/9/2013-JC dated 25 June, 2013 the CBEC has clari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case for undervaluation becomes weak and appeal in the Supreme Court is not merited. 7. In view of the above the LME price cannot be the basis to enhance the declared price, in the absence of any contemporaneous value of the imported goods is available on record. 8. In view of the above analysis, we hold that the transaction value has been enhanced arbitrarily without any evidence on record. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the impugned orders. Hence, we accept the declared value of the imported goods declared by the appellants. 9. In view of the above, the demands raised against the appellants are set aside. In the result, appeals are allowed with consequential relief. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
