9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of similar goods. The value available on NIDB data cannot be relied upon to reject the declared value. This view has been held by the Tribunal in the case of AGARWAL FOUNDRIES (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [ 2019 (6) TMI 1544 - CESTAT HYDERABAD ]. The rejection of the value declared by the Appellant based on NIDB data on similar goods is not sustainable. Accordingly, in respect of the import made by the Appellant under Bill of Entry No 8177874 dated 10.10.2012, there is no evidence available on record to reject the transaction value declared by them and hence the differential duty arrived at by the adjudicating authority based on the value available on contemporaneous import of similar goods is not sustainable. Since the demand is not sustainable, the penalty imposed on the Appellant on this count is not sustainable. Penalty of Rs.7,00,000/- on the Partner Shri. Puneet Samalia under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The impugned order has not brought in any evidence against the partner in the alleged offence. As the allegation of suppression of value is not established, the penalty imposed on the partner is liable to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as branded because of embossing of SORL on the parts. The Notice proposed to re-determine the assessable value of the goods imported vide Bill of Entry no.8177874 dated 10.10.2012 along with the goods imported vide 9 Bills of Entry, which were already cleared on payment of customs duties. The Notice was adjudicated vide Order-in Original dated 22.03.2016 , wherein the Commissioner of Customs has rejected the assessed value of Rs.90,15,955.15 in respect of the goods imported vide 9 Bills of Entry earlier and re-determined the value as 2,59,33,709.26, as per Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules 2007. He has confirmed the demand of customs duty of Rs.58,42,994.94 along with interest and imposed equal amount of duty as penalty. He also confiscated the goods seized in the godown at Delhi and allowed the same to be redeemed on payment of Fine of Rs.6,00,000/-. In respect of the goods imported vide Bill of Entry No.8177874 dated 10.10.2012, he rejected the declared value of Rs.16,37,507.16/- and re-determined the value as 50,20,047.36. He confirmed the duty of Rs.11,60,092.93/- along with interest and imposed equal amount of duty as penalty on the Company. The goods imported under this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entry were cleared upon assessment and payment of duty by the proper officer. They have not suppressed any information before the assessing officer. Hence the demands confirmed in respect of the 9 Bills of Entry are barred by limitation and liable to be set aside. (vi) The Appellant is Partnership Firm and penalty has been imposed on the Firm. Hence, no penalty imposable on the Partner separately. (vii) In view of the above submissions, the Appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned order on merits as well as on limitation. 6. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the goods imported vide Bill of Entry No.8177874 dated 10.10.2012,were branded goods. The SORL logo available on the goods indicate that they were branded goods. The goods imported vide the 9 Bills of Entry were also branded goods as evident from the goods seized from the godown. He contended that the assessable value has been rightly re-determined in the impugned order and accordingly prayed for rejecting the party's appeal. 7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 8. We observe that the Appellant filed nine Bills of Entry for home consumption which were assessed by the proper officer and clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue. Since the appellant is engaged in the business of wholesale and imports goods in wholesale and sells it to the wholesale dealers. Thus, the goods imported in small quantities and its value cannot be compared with the goods imported in loose condition in huge quantity and the transaction value declared cannot be rejected based on the basis of the price of similar goods available in NIDB data. As there is no evidence available on record to reject the transaction value declared by the Appellant in respect of the goods imported under the 9 Bills of Entry, we hold that the demand of differential duty confirmed in the impugned order in respect of those 9 Bills of Entry are not sustainable. Accordingly, we set aside the same. As the demand itself is not sustainable, no penalty imposable on this count and accordingly we set aside the penalty imposed. 11. The Appellant contended that in respect of the demand made against the goods imported vide 9 Bills of Entry, extended period of limitation could not have been invoked as there was no suppression of fact involved. We observe that all the 9 Bills of entry were cleared upon assessment and payment of duty by the proper officer. The App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that even if the authorities reject the MRP declared by them, the department has to apply the Valuation Rules under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, for the purpose of determination of value of the goods . They cannot arbitrarily multiply the declared value by two and half times and give 30% abatement. Such method of valuation is not available in any of the Valuation Rules. Hence, the method of valuation adopted by the department is arbitrary and not sustainable. 15. Another observation made by the investigation for rejecting the declared value by the Appellant was that many big Companies namely VE Commercial Ltd., Tata Motors, Automotive Coaches and Components, JCB Ltd have imported parts bearing SORL brand at a value higher than the value declared by the Appellant. We observe that for the purpose of challenging the value declared by the Appellant and loading the value of the goods imported, there is no Bill of Entry of VE Commercial Ltd. and Tata Motors brought on record. The other evidences relied upon by the Revenue regarding imports by M/s. Pratap Singh Sons, M/s. Pahwa Distributors are found to be in small quantities of packaged goods, which cannot be considered a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar goods. Relying on the decisions in the cases of Topsia Estates Pvt Ltd v. CC (Import- Seaport) Chennai [2015 (330) E.L.T. 799 (Tri. - Chennai)], CC New Delhi v. Nath International [2013 (289) E.L.T. 305 (Tri. - Del.), Impex Steel Bearing Co. v. CC Delhi-IV [2014 (302) E.L.T. 464 (Tri. - Del.)] and Eicher Tractors Ltd v. CC Mumbai [2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)] it has been decided that the department cannot reject the declared value and assess the goods as per the NIDB data. 18. In view of the above discussions and by following the decision cited above, we hold that the rejection of the value declared by the Appellant based on NIDB data on similar goods is not sustainable. Accordingly, we hold that in respect of the import made by the Appellant under Bill of Entry No 8177874 dated 10.10.2012, there is no evidence available on record to reject the transaction value declared by them and hence the differential duty arrived at by the adjudicating authority based on the value available on contemporaneous import of similar goods is not sustainable. Since the demand is not sustainable, the penalty imposed on the Appellant on this count is not sustainable. 19. The adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
