TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1262
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Totally there were 25 different types of parts. The name of the supplier declared was M/s.Country Oriental Equipments and Machineries, Singapore and country of origin was declared as China. On scrutiny of the documents, it appeared to the department that the value of the goods declared was low for the following reasons :- * It was around Rs. 50/- per Kg and it was even less than the prices at which the old and used excavators were being imported. * It was less in relation to the contemporaneous NIDB values of similar goods. * The values of similar goods had already come under scrutiny by the SIIB, and were enhanced in their previous import. 2. The goods were examined and the department was of the opinion that the assessable va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ountries and the rates pertained to clearances made five years back. There are no manufacturers in Singapore, and only traders who would trade in Chinese goods. * In 2002 the rate of EX200 and EX60 bottom rollers was Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 4000/- respectively. But now M/s.Vaishnavi Engineers have advertised the same at Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 1800/- respectively. 4. After due process of Law, the Adjudicating Authority ordered enhancement of the value and the operative portion of the order is reproduced as under :- The values of the 25 items declared in the Bill of Entry no.914209 / 23.10.07 are determined as under, in light of the provisions of Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules 2007, after rejection of the values under the provisions of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8 20 PC220-3-Swing Circle 20826 52889 9 21 PC60 Tooth 146 199 10 23 PC200-5-Recoil Spring 2083 4262 11 24 2424J124-Track Shoe 253 739 The assessment of the subject bill of entry shall be completed accordingly and the importer shall pay duty forthwith. 5. Being aggrieved by the above order of enhanced assessment of value, the appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and vide order impugned herein, the same was upheld. Hence this appeal. 6. On behalf of the appellant, the Ld.Counsel Shri.Murugappan reiterated the grounds of appeal and made the following main submissions which are as under :- * The department has not given any sufficient grounds fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (330) E.L.T.799 (Tri. Chennai) (ii) ANEJA STEELS Vs COMMISSIONER OF C.EX., NOIDA 2016 (331) E.L.T.95 (Tri. Del.) (iii) VENTURE IMPEX PVT LTD. Vs. C.C. (IMPORT & GENERAL), NEW DELHI 2016 (338) E.L.T.759 (Tri. Del) (iv) COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI Vs MARBLE ART 2013 (289) E.L.T. 346 (Tri. Del.). 7. On behalf of the Department, the Ld.AR Shri.A.Cletus reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that on reasonable doubt on the declared value, a query was put to the appellant who had submitted the details of contemporaneous import of like goods. The appellant was given several personal hearings for furnishing evidences. The contention of the appellant that transaction value has not been rejected on sufficient ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d and re-determined for assessment. Thus the authorities below have rightly enhanced the value and the same calls for no interference. 9. Heard both sides. 10. Though the appellant had contended that transaction value has not been rejected and that there are no ground for rejection of transaction value, we do not find force in this argument. The adjudicating authority has discussed in detail that there was reasonable ground for doubting the transaction value, since the country of origin was not clear from the goods and the documents furnished. Out of the 25 items imported, for 14 items the value has been enhanced on the basis of the value of contemporaneous import furnished by the appellant. But the Department has adopted the highest ....