TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 888
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 19.11.2012. 3. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are appellant importers M/s. Essfo Impex Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Ess Dee Trading Co. (herein after referred to as appellant importers) were engaged in import of ball valves/check valves and cartridges etc. through JNPT, ICD Mulund. The goods were imported during the period 21.08.2008 to 30.04.2010 in the case of appellant importer M/s. Essfo Impex Pvt. Ltd. and in the case of appellant importer M/s. Ess Dee Trading Co. the imports were during the period of 16.05.2006 to 22.11.2009. They filed Bills of Entry and the said goods were cleared after final assessment of bills of entry. Subsequently, after getting specific information about under-valuation of the imported consignments, P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the said findings of the adjudicating authority are totally erroneous as there is no test conducted on the goods imported to ascertain whether the Ball valves and Check Valves were having the content of brass and zinc as stated by Shri S.K. Dhawan. It is his further submission that the cost factor cannot be adopted for valuation, when the constituent of the imported consignments are not known; LME price cannot be relied upon as also the tariff value for scrap of brass and zinc cannot be adopted for valuation and on the face of the fact that the percentage of raw materials in the final product is taken arbitrarily. It is his submission that the department did not produce or relied upon any contemporaneous import, while appellants had pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cordingly requirement of Rule 5(3) of Customs Rules were validated and the appeal was allowed. He would submit that a similar issue was decided by this Bench in the bunch of appeals in the case of Ajay Export and Ors. vide final order No. A/3446-3470/15/CB dated 20.10.2015 wherein it was held that contemporaneous imports price needs to be considered for arriving at the correct value. 4. Learned D.R. would submit that the finished goods imported by the appellant i.e. valves which have to be manufactured wherein the cost of raw material, manufacturing cost and other costs are considered for the purpose of valuation. He would submit that the raw material price of brass scrap and zinc scrap is more than the value of the imported consignment wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in zinc ball valves was 65% and iron content was 35%. 6.2 That under-valuation and mis-declaration has been admitted due to the fact that importers have not submitted the manufacturer invoices, catalogues from the trading house, supporting interrogation of the employees. 6.3 Opinion of the Jalandhar Central Excise Divisional Deputy Commissioner under whom many such units existed wherein it said that value addition is 30% on the raw materials. In his own statement the value of metal brass and zinc was much higher. 6.4 The transaction value was ridiculously low. 7. We find that the argument put forth by learned D.R. in support of the impugned orders and reasoning of the impugned orders for confirmation of differential duty are flawed f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mporaneous import of the same items. The provisions of Customs Act, 1962 are very clear on this point inasmuch as in order to reject the transaction value the least that is expected is to produce any evidence of contemporaneous import of higher value. In the case in hand, it is the submission of appellant importer they had submitted details of contemporaneous imports of the same goods and the value seems to be more or less is same as declared by the appellant importer is not addressed to and also surprising to note that the adjudicating authority has not recorded a single sentence of finding on such contemporaneous import detail given by the appellant. 7.3 Thirdly, we find that the adjudicating authority has come to a conclusion that there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s incorrect as the value in the contemporaneous imports were accepted by the department in respect of some importers. We reproduce the findings of this Bench in the case of Ajay Exports (supra). "(c) We also note that the adjudicating authority has refused to look at other contemporaneous imports, which are not the subject matter of the present show cause notice on the ground that there was gross undervaluation being done by the trade. We find that if the value of contemporaneous imports were accepted and the transaction value in those case are not doubted by the revenue in the assessment orders, it is not understandable why the said values could not have been used for the purposes of comparing the same with the value of the consignments ....