9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a basis for enhancement of value. It has been held that the NIDB data can be a guideline for the customs to arrive at the value of the goods but the NIDB data cannot be applied directly unless the value given therein falls within the parameters of identical goods or similar goods. The rejection of the transaction value and enhancement of the value by the department in this case are not sustainable in law. Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside - Appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And HON BLE MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Harishankar Adhyaprasad Pandey, Sr. Legal Officer for the Appellants Shri Rajesh R. Kurup, Superintendent for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR : The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant had imported Aluminium Scrap and filed Bills of Entry No. 2200633 dated 01.01.2021 and Bill of Entry No. 2200628 dated 01.01.2021, Bill of Entry 2014687 dated 18.12.2020 and BE No. 9985145 dated 16.12.2020 (Appeal No. C/10797/2023) and Bills of Entry 2200633 and 2200628 dated 01.01.2021 (Appeal No. C/10798/2023). During the course of verification of the Bills of Entry it was noticed that the declared value of imported goods was lowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rves to be set aside. 3. He also submits that even Rule 5(1) ibid also clearly provided that subject to the provisions of Rule 3, the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value of similar goods imported at or about the same time as the goods being valued. Further it is settled position lf law that value can be discarded only in the circumstance provided under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 ibid. 4. He also submits that appellant declared transaction value at the time of filing bills of entry and satisfied all the ingredients in Section 14(1) of the Customs Act. A query was raised expressing doubt on the Declared Value of BE No. 2200633 dated 01.01.2021@US $1275/MT to be very low. The Appellant promptly justified the declared value by submitting their own previous BEs, which the proper officer rejected. The BE relied upon by the proper officer was with a biased mind selected BE of higher value of import by a pick-and choose method overlooking the Customs Act, 1962 and CVR, 2007. He placed reliance on the following judgments. (i) Sedna Impex India P Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Faridabad -2017(347) ELT 317. (ii) Agarwal Foundries P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs- 2020(371 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted the value in case of disputed Bill of Entry as per the provisions of Rule 12 and re-determined the value under Rule 5 of Customs (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 (CVR in short). However Rule 12 does not automatically empowers the Assessing Officer to reject the transaction value. It does not per se provide method for determination of value. It only provides for mechanism and procedure for rejection of declared value which is clear from explanation to the Rule reproduced hereunder :- Explanation. - (1) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that (i) This rule by itself does not provide a method for determination of value, it provides a mechanism and procedure for rejection of declared value in cases where there is reasonable doubt that the declared value does not represent the transaction value; where the declared value is rejected, the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially in accordance with rules 4 to 9. (ii) The declared value shall be accepted where the proper officer is satisfied about the truth and accuracy of the declared value after the said enquiry in consultation with the importers. (iii) the proper officer shall have the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ingredients for the contemporaneous import. So far as the contemporaneous import is concerned the department has relied upon Bills of Entry wherein the Aluminium Scrap Grade Zobra is assessed. We find that in the present matter appellant also produced the evidence of contemporaneous imports at lower price of similar goods, even from the same supplier, of the same EU origin. In the instant case the department could not show any evidence that the transaction value declared by the appellant was not price actually paid and that buyer and seller of the goods are related persons and the price was not a sole consideration. Besides, we also noticed that no evidence has been led by the Revenue in the instant case to counter the Appellant s contention that the transaction value declared by them, as evident from the documents is the real transaction value. 13. On the identical issue, in the case of CC, Calcutta v. South India Television Pvt. Ltd. [2007 (214) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] endorsed the same views as under: Therefore, the transaction value under Rule 4 must be the price paid or payable on such goods at the time and place of importation in the course of international trade. Section 14 is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
