9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsignments were provisionally assessed by taking the price as USD 10 per sq.m. Thus the bills of entry were assessed provisionally pending verification of the declared values by taking bond and bank guarantee from the appellant. Later based on the letter received from the Directorate General of Valuation, Mumbai dated 19.03.2008, wherein it was intimated to finalise the provisional assessment by taking the contemporaneous value, prevalent during the period of importation of the goods, the adjudicating authority finalised the provisional assessments. The value of the goods imported from Malaysia was enhanced under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules 1988 read with section 14 of the Customs Act 1962, vide order dated 23.12.2010. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upheld the finalisation of assessment passed by the original authority enhancing the declared value. Aggrieved by such order the appellant is once again before the Tribunal. 2. The learned counsel Shri Hari Radhakrishnan appeared and argued on behalf of the appellant. The details of the bills of entry filed by the appellant for import of polished porcelain tiles and the value enhanced by original authority are given as under. Sl.No. Bill of Entry No. & Date Country of Origin Size Declared Unit Price in USD Assessed Unit Price in USD 1. 374465/21.01.2002 China 600x600 5.0 5.00 2. 420785/27.08.2002 Indonesia 500x500 600x600 3.75 4.85 3.75 4.85 3. 436389/29.10.2002 Indonesia&n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules Act 1988, which is applicable for identical goods is not adoptable on the basis of the NIDB data as the goods imported cannot said to be identical since the manufacturer of these goods are different. Similarly it is stated that, Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules is also not adoptable as certain other parameters are not similar. Rule 7 and 7A are not adoptable as the quantifiable data for the respective imports is not available for adopting deductive or computed value method. It is stated that the values are therefore re- determined under Residual Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules. The Ld. counsel pointed out that the original authority has proceeded to finalise the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r doubting the transaction value and rejecting the same. 6. The Ld. Counsel asserted that the enhancement of value without giving reasons to reject the transaction value is erroneous and illegal. Further, there is no evidence to show that the contemporaneous imports are comparable in regard to quality and quantity of similar goods. The Courts have always cautioned in using the NIDB data for enhancement of declared value. The decision in the case of Agarwal Foundries (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs [2020 (371) E.L.T.859 (Tri. - Hyd.)] was relied to support this argument. The decision of the Tribunal in the said case was maintained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2020 (371) E.L.T. A 295 (SC).&nb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue;] 2[(e) there are no restrictions as to the disposition or use of the goods by the buyer other than restrictions which - (i) are imposed or required by law or by the public authorities in India; or (ii) limit the geographical area in which the goods may be resold; or (iii) do not substantially affect the value of the goods; (f) the sale or price is not subject to same condition or consideration for which a value cannot be determined in respect of the goods being valued; (g) no part of the proceeds of any subsequently resale, disposal or use of the goods by the buyer will accrue directly or indirectly to the seller, unless an appropriate adjustment can be made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of these rules; and ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... truth or accuracy of the value declared by importer, he can proceed to re-determine the value of the goods after rejecting the transaction value. In the present case, there is no evidence put forward by the department as to the reason for doubting the transaction value. In para 5 of the order in original it is merely stated that as per the letter received from the Director of Valuation, Mumbai dated 19.03.2008 the provisional assessment is finalized by taking the NIDB data into consideration. As per the instructions given by the Directorate of Valuation, Mumbai to finalise the assessments on the basis of NIDB data, the original authority has proceeded to re-determine the value and enhance the same. The department has faile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
