9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent case though the Bills of entry of contemporaneous import were relied upon, the adjudication authority failed to ascertain that whether the goods of contemporaneous imports is identical or similar to the goods of the assessee in the present case. No effort was made by the adjudicating authority to ascertain quality, quantity, characteristics of the goods of contemporaneous import. In the present import without carrying out any test to the fact that goods of contemporaneous import and the goods in question in present case are identical or similar, enhancement of the value is not legal and correct. It is also observed that other than Bills of entry of contemporaneous import, there is no other evidence to show that the assessee have supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound as per declaration. However, as per the assessing authority, the declared price was lower than the contemporaneous import price of similar goods and the goods were provisionally assessed with 100% bond and 50% bank guarantee of differential duty. The Adjudicating Authority finalized the provisional assessment, rejected the declared value and finalized the bills of entry taking allegedly the lowest value found in NIDB data as ₹ 150/kg to ₹ 151/kg. (USD 2.2/kg). The appellants filed appeal before the Ld. First appellate authority who vide a common order in appeal no. MUN-CUSTM-000-APP-171-180-18-19 dated 31/08/2018 rejected the appeals holding that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected the declared value and has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 500 mt covering 215 bills of entry under import. In these Bills of entry which has been relied upon either the goods are different or the quantity declared are meager as compared to huge quantities imported by the appellants. He submits that Ld. Commissioner (A) in case of assessee s appeals in the impugned order assumed that the appellants ought to have explained the reasons for difference in the alleged value shown in the NIBD data and ought to have provided additional information to justify the detailed value which is contrary to the law. He submits that merely going by the description given in the NIDB data was erroneous as Rule 5 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 based on the criteria of similar goods for comparison of the value. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplications without bringing on record any such data on record. The value declared by the appellant should not have been rejected. He submits that while relying upon alleged contemporaneous import data, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority very conveniently left out the bills of entry which were filed at other ports like Chennai and Kolkata during the same period wherein the declared value was either less than the value by the present assessee or was also similar. He also submits that the appellate authority s contention that the Original Authority has correctly taken recourse to the similar goods without any evidence as no comparison has been established on the basis of any evidence. He submits that under the Customs Act, in terms of section 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 2017 (348) ELT 489 (Tri.-Kolkata) 3. Shri Sameer Chitkara, Ld. Asst. Commr. (AR) reiterates the findings of the impugned order which is against the assessee and reiterates the ground of appeal in case of Revenue s appeal. He also placed reliance on following judgments: 1. Rajkumar Knitting Mills (P) Ltd. 1998 (98) E.L.T. 292 (S.C.) 2. Gira Enterprises Vs. Commr. of Cus. , Ahmedabad- 2006 (194) E.L.T. 92 (Tri-Mumbai) 3. Punjab processors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs- 2003 (157) E.L.T. 625 (S.C). 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. We find that the issue involved in the present case is that whether the valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. (2) The provisions of clauses (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1), sub-rule (2) and sub-rule (3), of rule 4 shall, mutatis mutandis, also apply in respect of similar goods. From the above provisions, it is clear that if there is any doubt about the transaction value declared by the assessee, then if at all the value of contemporaneous import needs to be applied, the value of identical goods or similar goods should be applied. However, in the present case though the Bills of entry of contemporaneous import were relied upon, the adjudication authority failed to ascertain that whether the goods of contemporaneous imports is identical or similar to the goods of the assessee in the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
