Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (11) TMI 178

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... data and other than this, there are no contemporaneous imports of similar goods declaring higher value having been referred to, by the said authority. Moreover, it is a fact borne on record that the appellant had tried to impress upon the Assistant Commissioner by furnishing imports of similar goods by various other importers, the value of which almost matched with that of the appellant before us, but however the same has not at all been considered by the said authority. It is the settled position of law that NIDB data cannot be the only basis for rejection of the declared value, which has been reiterated by various CESTAT Benches, including the Chennai Bench, in the case of M/S. ALMAA TRADERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT) , CHEN .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n order and consequent determination of the value by the original authority could be accepted? 4.1 The assessee had filed a Bill-of-Entry bearing No. 9236906 dated 06.02.2013 for the import of (i) 990 Pcs of Uber Brand Induction Cooker with 1 PCT Free Spare Parts Model No. UB001IC (2000W) and (ii) 1170 Pcs of Uber Brand Induction Cooker with 1 PCT Free Spare Parts Model No. UB002IC (2000W) and the country of origin was China. 4.2 The appellant had declared the unit value at USD 14.00 per piece CIF for the declared item Uber Brand Induction Cooker with 1 PCT Free Spare Parts Model No. UB001IC (2000W) and at USD 13.50 per piece for the declared item Uber Brand Induction Cooker with 1 PCT Free Spare Parts Model No. UB002IC (2000W) . 4.3 It app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , by the said authority. Moreover, it is a fact borne on record that the appellant had tried to impress upon the Assistant Commissioner by furnishing imports of similar goods by various other importers, the value of which almost matched with that of the appellant before us, but however the same has not at all been considered by the said authority. 7.1 It is the settled position of law that NIDB data cannot be the only basis for rejection of the declared value, which has been reiterated by various CESTAT Benches, including the Chennai Bench, in the case of M/s. Almaa Traders v. Commissioner of Customs (Export), Chennai [Final Order No. 40898 of 2023 dated 11.10.2023 in Customs Appeal No. 40935 of 2014 CESTAT, Chennai], wherein it was held as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ance with the spirits of law, for which reasons the same deserves to be set aside. 7.2 A similar view was also expressed by this Bench in the case of M/s. Shah B Impex v. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai [Final Order No. 40917 of 2023 dated 12.10.2023 in Customs Appeal No. 40823 of 2014 CESTAT, Chennai], the relevant portion of which is reproduced below: - 4.1 We have perused the table reproduced by the original authority at paragraph 6 of her order, but however, what is conspicuously missing is as to why and how the appellant had under-valued its imports. There is also no discussion as to the quantity of import, commercial level and other data insofar as the NIDB data referred to is concerned, nor do we find anywhere as to any di .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e invoice price is not found to be correct but it is for the Department to prove that the invoice price is not correct. 8. We are therefore prima facie satisfied that the Revenue has not made out a case firstly, for the rejection of the declared value and secondly, no case is either made out justifying re-determination of the same. We find that the decisions/orders relied upon by the appellant support our above view, and hence, we hold that the adjudicating authority was clearly in error in rejecting the declared value and then re-determining the same; and hence, the impugned order is clearly unsustainable for the above reasons. Hence, we set aside the impugned order. 9. Consequently, the appeal is allowed with consequential benefits, if an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates