9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not made available to the assessee, which has been relied upon for making the final assessment. In this view of the matter, we find that reliance on such contemporaneous export data is hit by the ruling of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills vs Commissioner of Income Tax [ 1954 (10) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] . Accordingly , we hold that such contemporaneous prices cannot be adopted for the purpose of finalisation of assessment. Accordingly , we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority, who is directed to hear the appellant and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. Accordingly , we allow this appeal by way of remand. - HON'BLE MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY , MEMBER ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... content was 61.19% and moisture was 5.38%. 4. At the time of export, the aforementioned Shipping Bill was provisionally assessed by the Customs Authority of Visakhapatnam Port, taking the provisional value of such goods at Rs.190 MT. Thereafter, considering the fact that appellant did not accept such provisional price, it made payment of Customs duty under protest. 5. At the time of finalisation of the assessment, the authority vide Order dated 20/03/2012 observed that the Fe content as per the Custom House Laboratory was 62.24%. However, as Iron Ore is a natural product, the initially declared Fe content of 62% was accepted by the authorities. Further, while arriving at the price to be adopted for the exports by the appellant, the adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant filed appeal, which was disposed of by of remand vide Order-in-Appeal dated 30/08/2012 by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) observing as follows: a) The Iron Ore exported by the other firms as stated in the table could be considered as similar to that of the appellant. b) However, reasonable adjustment in the export price as provided in Rule 4(2)(ii) of the Customs valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules 2007, viz., the difference in commercial levels and quantity levels had not been provided. Hence, reasonable adjustment as stipulated is required to be provided in the present case. 8. In the second round of litigation, the Denovo Order-in-Original dated 29/05/2013 has ignored the remand directions and failed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in this regard. If on receiving such information or in the absence thereof, the proper officer has reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the value declared, the transaction value shall be deemed to not have been determined in accordance with Rule 3(1) of the Valuation Rules. 11. In the facts of the present case, the proper officer did not raise any doubt or inaccuracy in the value declared for the exporter. In fact, the Authority in its order dated 20/03/2012 have held/observed that there was no evidence on record that there was a mis-declaration of value and that there was no documentary evidence to prove that the exporter has received any excess amount other than that as realised as per the Bank realisation certificate and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for refund of the excess duty paid at the time of provisional assessment. 15. It is further urged that without prejudice, the contemporaneous price adopted is contrary to Rule 4(2) of the Valuation Rules, in as much as it has been adopted without consideration of any commercial details and quantitative details. Further urges that the impugned order is in the teeth of rule 4(2) of the Valuation Rules and accordingly, fit to be set aside. In the facts of the present case, the transaction value being a negotiated value and the party is being not related and there being no other data provided by the Revenue that the appellant has received anything over and above the transaction value, the whole exercise of revaluation and increasing the tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artmental Authorities. Accordingly, learned Counsel prays for setting aside the order with consequential benefits. 17. Learned ARs for Revenue Mr. Pradeep Saxena and Mr. P. Amaresh inter alia rely on the findings in the impugned order. 18. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the transaction value has not been rejected nor its correctness doubted, as is evident from the orders of the court below. We further find that resorting to the contemporaneous prices is vague and further, there is no consideration as to the quantity, etc. We also find that the copy of such material with regard to contemporaneous export prices was not made available to the assessee, which has been relied upon for making the final assessment. In this vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
