AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1262
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 value of such goods would work out to total Rs. 30.34....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 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 Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules 2007. Items where importer has f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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 for rejecting the transaction value. * Out of the 25 items, value of 14 items has been enhanced on the basis of the highest value of contemporaneous imports which was arrived at from the values furnished by the appellant. In such contemporaneous imports, the appellants had also furnished value of imports where value was less than the value adopted by the Adjudicating Authority. However, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 grounds is false. In Para 10 of the Order-In-Original, the adjudicating authority has clearly stated the reasons to doubt the value declared and also the grounds to reject the transaction value. On first check of the goods, it was revealed that there is no clarity as to the country of origin of the goods. To show that goods were declared to be of China origin, there was no documents. The goods were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 of such contemporaneous import. This according to the appellant is against the provisions laid in sub Rule (3) of Rule (4) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. sub Rule (3) provides that in applying this Rule, if more than one transaction value of identical goods is found, the lowest of such value shall be used to determine the value of imported goods. This being the law, the enhancement of the value on th....