9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion value has to be admitted as the assessable value unless proved to be incorrect. For such purpose, proving the value to be wrong, independent evidence is required and mere reference to NIDB data is not sufficient. It is held by various Courts that NIDB data cannot be made the sole basis for enhancement of the value. Tribunal has also considered similar issues in a number of earlier decisions and has held that adoption of NIDB Data, without any other evidence on record to establish the transaction value as incorrect, is not proper and justified. Thus, there is no justification for enhancement of the transaction value basing solely on the NIDB Data, that too without determining how the imported goods are comparable and contemporaneous in terms of quality, quantity and country of origin and other commercial factors which affect the transaction value. Neither there was any communication of the reasons to the Appellant as to how the declared transaction value is doubted in terms of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The impugned order dated 24.12.2014 is set aside - Appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR. P. DINESHA , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO , MEMBER ( TECHNIC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter comparing the purchasing price and selling price of the foreign related supplier. ii. In respect of glass tubes, the importers have submitted the invoice of an unrelated supplier from Switzerland and also the invoice of the related supplier which would show that the price of the related supplier is higher than the price of the unrelated supplier. iii. The price of Diethylaminosulfer Trifluoride varies depending upon the quality and arriving at the transaction value depending upon the NIDB Data without comparing the quantity and quality is not in accordance with the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, and in the absence of any details about the import of similar or identical products from the same county of export, any grounds raised on the basis of NIDB Data would not be sustainable. iv. In support of their contentions, the Appellant has placed reliance on the following decisions: (a) Anushka Overseas [2011 (274) ELT 546] (b) Marble Art [2013 (289) ELT 346] 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant while reiterating the grounds of appeal has put forth that various fora have repeatedly held that in the absence of cogent evidence, mere NIDB data is not sufficient to prove allegations on u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the declared value of the goods being valued, closely approximates to one of the following values ascertained at or about the same time. (i) the transaction value of identical goods, or of similar goods, in sales to unrelated buyers in India; (ii) the deductive value for identical goods or similar goods; (iii) the computed value for identical goods or similar goods: Provided that in applying the values used for comparison, due account shall be taken of demonstrated difference in commercial levels, quantity levels, adjustments in accordance with the provisions of rule 10 and cost incurred by the seller in sales in which he and the buyer are not related; (c) substitute values shall not be established under the provisions of clause (b) of this sub-rule. It is incumbent on the Department to show as to how the relation between the appellants and their overseas sellers has influenced and affected the prices. There is no evidence on the record to show that the values agreed upon between the importer and the exporter are not correct transaction values. This fact shows that there is no independent evidence with the Revenue to first reject the transaction values. Further, we find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assistant Commissioner for enhancing the value and no reasons stand given by him for rejection of the transaction value as such, by following the Tribunal s decision in the case of M/s. Prasad Enterprises, Order Nos. 1329-36/04-NB dated 21-11-2004 also by following the Supreme Court decision in the case of Eicher Tractors, 2004 (41) RLT 621 = 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.), he has held that transaction value has to be accepted in the absence of any other evidence to show that the said transaction value was not correct and there existed special relationship between the supplier of the goods and the importer. As such, he has held that the department had discarded the transaction value without any basis which is contrary to provisions of law. 4. Revenue in their memorandum of appeal have submitted that enhancement was done on the basis of NIDB data of contemporaneous imports of identical goods. However, we find no merits in the above plea of the Revenue. First of all, to adopt the value of the contemporaneous imports, the transaction value is required to be rejected as incorrect/false on the basis of same evidence. Secondly, the contemporaneous imports value is required to be pi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 discussion by the original authority as to how the same were comparable with the impugned goods on hand, imported by the appellant. There is no discussion also as to the quality, thickness, etc., in the goods referred to in the NIDB data. 4.2 We find that the Tribunal Benches across India have held that the NIDB data alone cannot be the basis for rejection of the transaction value. There is a reference to under-valuation way back in 2000, no specific reference to the appellant s case, no reference ever made to the price being at arm s length, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
