TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 866
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessed on enhanced value, on the basis of cotemporaneous value of steel scraps imported by the other importers. Later on, the appellant asked for the order to be issued under Section 17 (5) of the Customs Act, 1962 and after the request of the appellant the order under Section 17 (5) of the Act was passed. The said order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) who affirmed the adjudication order. Aggrieved from the said orders, the appellant is before us. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that Revenue has enhanced the value without rejecting the declared price and therefore, impugned orders are to the set-aside. He further submits that ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that as the appellant has accepted the enhanced value without any protest, the same cannot be challenged in appeals. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), to support his contentions, relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vikas Spinners vs. CC, Lucknow 2001 (128) ELT 143 (Tri. Del.) and in the case of CC (Import), Mumbai vs. Asian Hotels Limited 2012 (275) 229 (Tri. Mumbai). He submits that the said reliance by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has no relevance to the facts of this case,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide. 6. We find that, in this case the value of contemporaneous imports has been taken as a basis for enhancing the price. The transaction value has not been rejected under Section 14 of the Customs Act, read with Rule 3(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. We also find that no samples were drawn from the consignments and no laboratory reports of the contents of the said goods are available. Therefore, relying on the decision in the case of S.K. Dhawan vs. CC (Import) Mumbai - 2016 (344) ELT 436 (Tri. Mumbai), wherein this Tribunal has observed as under:- "7.3 Thirdly, we find that the adjudicating authority has come to a conclusion that there was undervaluation as the appellant-importer did not produce the manufacturer s invoice nor catalogue. In our view these findings of the adjudicating authority is totally not in consonance with the law, as these consignments were cleared by the same department when the bills of entries were filed and the documents as produced were accepted as correct at that time. If the authorities had entertained any doubt, they should have called for these documents at the time of clearance of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pertain to these groups; even as far as Ratan Lal Group is concerned these documents cannot be relied upon for the reasons set out hereinabove." 7.6 It can be seen that the above reproduced findings are squarely applicable in these cases. The reliance placed by the learned DR in the case of Shibani Engineering Systems (supra) will also not carry the case of Revenue any further as we find that in that case also in paragraph 11, the Apex Court has come to a conclusion, that the transaction value can be rejected if it is unrealistically and ridiculously low, but at the same time they had stated that the reasoning given in that case by the adjudicating authority are not acceptable to them in the absence of details of contemporaneous imports. In the case in hand, the ratio of the said judgment may not apply as it is on record that the appellant herein produced details of contemporaneous imports which was not considered by the adjudicating authority. Further in the case of Vyapar Industries Limited 2016 (343) ELT 825 (Tri. Mumbai), again the same issue has come up before this Tribunal and this Tribunal has held as under :- "6. Firstly, we notice that the import....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me of their manufacture. It is not clear as to why the lower authority rejected the report given by the Chartered Engineer appointed by the department. The forensic test done also categorically stated that there is no tempering with any label of the machines. In spite of all these facts the lower authority went ahead and did some search in internet and fixed the value for imported goods. We are not able to appreciate the legality of such decision. The Tribunal Commissioner v. B.C. Trading Company - 2008 (223) E.L.T. A133 (S.C.), Commissioner of Customs v. P.J. Network - 2012 (277) E.L.T. 104 (Tri.-Del.) and in Arrow Coated Products Ltd. v. CC, Delhi - 2008 (231) E.L.T. 633 (Tri.-Del.) held that value cannot be enhanced based on information taken from internet. There should be a clear finding about contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods of comparable quality. Ld. DR relied on the Tribunal s decision in Grand Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. Final Order Nos. 52569-52570/2015, dated 17-8-2015 and also in Vikas Spinners v. CC, Lucknow - 2001 (128) E.L.T. 143 (Tri.-Del.) to state that loaded value uncontested or voluntarily accepted and duty paid, cannot be agitated later by th....