1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Value enhancement on Chinese decorative light imports rejected due to selective NIDB data disclosure, benefit granted to importer</h1> CESTAT Kolkata dismissed the revenue's appeal concerning enhancement of the declared value of decorative lights imported from China. The enhancement had ... Enhancement of value of different types of decorative lights imported from China - enhancement on the basis of NIDB data - ground for challenging the order of assessment was that out of 1341 imports of identical or similar goods, only data with regard to 88 Bill of Entry were provided and remaining data was suppressed by the revenue - HELD THAT:- It is a fact on record that value has been enhanced on the basis of 1341 imports of similar goods by the importers, but only data with regard to 88 imports were provided to the appellant. It is very strange why the revenue has suppressed the remaining data to justify their enhancement of the value. In that circumstances, benefit of doubt goes in favour of the respondent. Therefore, enhancement of the value of imports is not sustainable. There are no infirmity in the impugned order. The same is upheld. The appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Respondent filed a Bill of Entry declaring decorative lights; revenue made a provisional assessment under section 18, Customs Act, 1962, and later enhanced value based on NIDB data said to cover 1,341 imports of similar or identical goods. On challenge, the respondent contended that only data for 88 Bill of Entry were furnished and the remaining data were suppressed. Appellate authority accepted that the department produced only 88 records despite relying on 1,341 entries. Tribunal finds it 'very strange why the revenue has suppressed the remaining data' and applies evidentiary principle, holding that the 'benefit of doubt goes in favour of the respondent.' Consequently, the Tribunal concludes that the 'enhancement of the value of imports is not sustainable,' finds 'no infirmity in the impugned order,' and upholds it; the appeal by the revenue is dismissed.