9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... price etc. of the contemporaneous imports. Thus, the order-in-original was without any evidence. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Customs Appeal No. 11787 of 2016 - A/11519/2019 - Dated:- 8-8-2019 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Sameer Chitkara, Additional Commissioner Advocate for the Appellant Shri Sanket Gupta, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER RAJU : This appeal has been filed by Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Mundra. 2. Ld. Counsel for the respondent pointed out that they had imported Polyester Knitted Fabrics (mixed lot) declaring the value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CC OnLine CEGAT para 3 ) 3. ... In the present case as mentioned above, even though there is a reference to contemporaneous import in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner no material regarding such import has been placed before us or made available by the appellant at any point of time. Therefore, assessment in this case has to be taken as having been made purely on the basis of LME Bulletin without any corroborative evidence of imports at or near that price which is not permissible under law. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (emphasis supplied). Dismissing the appeals, this Court observed as follows: (Prabhu Dayal Prem Chand case, SCC p. 537, para 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 44) ELT 1051 (Tri. Chennai) wherein in Para 10, following has been observed :- 10. In the absence of any valid documents by the appellant it is evident that declared price of US $ 0.70 per mtr. is not a normal price and the same cannot be considered as transaction value. We find that adjudicating authority correctly determined the value under Rule 4(3) of CVR, 2007 and taken the lowest contemporaneous price of US $ 1.05 per mtr. instead of US $ 2.36/mtr. of contemporaneous import was available. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio of above two decisions, we find that rejection of declared price and enhancement of value from US $ 0.70 to US $ 1.05 per mtr. determined by the adjudicating authority is fully just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rter or number of Bills of Entry on the basis of which said observation has been made. It is seen that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt. Limited (supra) affirmed the decision of the Tribunal. In the said case, it observed as follows:- 14. In Commissioner of Customs vs. Prabhu Dayal Prem Chand, this Court was confronted with almost same kind of fact situation. On the basis of the information received subsequently from the London Metal Exchange (for short LME ) to the effect that the price of the two metals viz, brass scrap and copper scrap, in LME as on the date of import was more than the price declared by the respondent, demanded additional duty amounting to ₹ 90,248/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the adjudication order or such material was placed before the Tribunal at the time of hearing of the appeal. The learned counsel for the Revenue has not been able to controvert the said observations by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter no fault can be found with the order passed by the Tribunal setting aside the additional demand created against the assessee. 7. Thus, without any specific evidence of contemporaneous imports the assertion of contemporaneous price is baseless. The order-in-original does not disclose the documents, the data, quantity, price etc. of the contemporaneous imports. In these circumstances, following the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, we hold that order-in-original was without any evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
