9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the instant case. Moreover, there is no record of any request be made by the appellant for intimation in writing of ground of doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared by the appellant. It is also noticed that the products has been described as Polyester Knitted Fabrics in all these entries. The quantity imported by the appellant is 21540 kgs. and the quantity imported against bill of entries No. 2198984 dated 1.01.2021 and 2198928 dated 01.01.2021 is 23905 kg. and 24265 kg., is comparable. All the imports were made from China. In this background, we find that the imports are comparable in all respects. There are no error in the impugned order rejecting the declared value and accepting the lowest of the contemporaneous import value of identically described goods falling under the identical heading imported at roughly the same time - appeal dismissed. - CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 10903 of 2022 - Final Order No. A/11108 / 2023 - Dated:- 3-5-2023 - HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. RAMESH NAIR And HON'BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL), MR. RAJU Sh. H. K Hirani, Consultant for the Appellant Sh. Vijay G. Iyengar, Superintendent (Authorized representative) for the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidence (Soft copies of RUDs other than screen shots) for re-determination of valuation viz. copies of the B/Es and related invoices. 2.3 Thereafter, two more bills of entry bearing No. 2198984 and 2198928 both dated 01.01.2021, for the same item, same country of origin and similar commercial quantity were retrieved from NIDB data and the video link were provided to the appellant through E-mail and personal hearing was fixed thereafter. 2.4 During the course of assessment, the risk management system issue alerts and referred two bills of entry for comparison with the value declared by the appellant. At the time of assessment the Assessing officer had following bills of entry for his reference: Sr. No. Bill of Entry No. Date Description of Goods/CTH No Qty (in Kgs) Dectated Price in USD/Kg. Country of Origin Remarks 1 9692766 / 24.11.20 Polyester Knitted Fabric/60063200 2514.5 2.80 China Referred by RMS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ass such order makes the order liable to be set aside, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon ble High Court of Cal. Sigma Power Products Pvt. Ltd- 2017 350 ELT 510. 2.8 It has been argued that enhancement of transaction value is against provisions of Section 14 customs Act and Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. It has been argued that no reason has been assigned for rejecting the declared transaction value and the rule under which the same re-determination has not been mentioned. It has been argued that unless there is additional consideration, involved the transaction value cannot be rejected. 2.9 It was further argued that it is mandatory to issue notice under Rule 12(2) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, before proceeding to re-determine the value under CBR, 2007. It has been argued that the notice needs to be issued communicating the reasons for rejection of declared value. It has been argued that as per Rule 12(2) the proper office at the request of importer is bound to intimate the importer in writing the grounds for doubting the truth for accuracy of the value declared in relation to goods imported and provide reasonable opportunity of being heard before taking final d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u are being intimated the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared. Please state why the declared value of the goods should not be rejected and re-determined under customs valuation rules, 2007 read with section 14 of the customs act, 1962. You are requested to submit evidences like payment details, maufacturers'irrelevent invoice, negotiation details, email exchanges etc to substantiate your declared value. Clearly submit whether you agree for value enhancement. 3. In response to the above query raised by the FAG, the importer has replied as under: *Please refer your query to be 2720081 dtd. 11.02.2021 it is to submit that we had filed bill of entry under self assessment under self assessment regulation 2011 and valuation of goods is governed by provisions of section 14(1) of customs act 1962 read with CVR 2007. Please specify how amplified declaration will affect classification and rate of duty. Bill of entry numbers provided without giving its import locations hard copy as contemporaneous evidence is irrelevant it is of more than six months old. Please specify reason for rejection of declared value since contemporaneous import price c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 2455445 dt. 22- Jan-21 of location INNSA1, where the Unit Price (Invoice value) of referred item is 2.85 USD per KGS and total quantity is 7950 KGs and value of BE No 9692766 dt. 24-Nov,20 of location INNSA 1 Inv. No. 1 item no. 1, where the unit price (invoice value) of referred item is 2.8 USD per Kgs and total quantity is 2514.5 Kgs . 7. In response to the above query the importer has replied as Please refer your second query raised on 25.02.2021 to BoE 2720081 dtd. 11.02.2021. Bill of Entry referred in query is of small qry. As compared with our import quantity. The value of Polyester Knitted Fabric cannot be compared since there is wide variation. The value depends on type, quality, size, design, make and thickness etc; you are requested to check NIDB data of similar/identical quantity and do the needful accordingly. It is further to submit that as per provisions of rule 4(3) of CVR 2007. In applying this rule if more than one transaction value of identical goods is found the lowest of such value shall be used to determine the value of imported goods. In view of the above facts circumstances in response to first reply to query it is requested please expedite th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm NIDB data and therefore the demand of providing actual bill of entry and invoices is not required to be fulfilled. 4.2 Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 are reproduced as follows: (4) Where it is found on verification, examination or testing of the goods or otherwise that the self-assessment is not done correctly, the proper officer may, without prejudice to any other action which may be taken under this Act, re assess the duty leviable on such goods. It is seen that once the assessing officer reaches a conclusion that the self-assessment has not been done correctly than he may proceed with reassessment in terms of said Sub- Section 17(4) of the Customs Act. In the instant case it is seen that the proceeding subsection 17(4) have culminated into the OIO dated 08.03.21. It is seen that before this order which is a speaking order the appellant has been provided opportunity of personal hearing. The NIDB data based on which re-assessment was done has been provided to the appellant. In this circumstances, the objections raised by the appellant do not hold ground. The decision in the case of Sigma Power Products Pvt. Ltd. relied by the appellant is of no avail as in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
