2017 (11) TMI 550

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rted Motor Cycle batteries from M/s Guangzhou Kaijie Power Supply Industrial Co. Ltd., China and filed the Bills of Entry for assessment before the Customs authority at the port of import. The Department conducted the first check in respect of the particulars of imports reflected in the Bills of Entry and re-assessed the same on the ground that the appellant had undervalued the imported goods. Accordingly, show cause proceedings were initiated against the appellant, seeking confiscation of 18 nos. of 12v9AH Motor Cycle batteries seized on 19.01.2012 and confirmation of duty demand in respect of the imported goods under 14 nos. of Bills of Entry. The SCNs dated 18.07.2012 and 16.09.2013 issued in this regard were adjudicated vide the impugne....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 2012; whereas, the subject imports in case of the appellant took place during the period February, 2010 to April, 2011. Thus, it is his submission that the period is not contemporaneous for the purpose of rejecting the declared value. He also submitted that the reliance placed on NIDB date in the impugned order is misplaced, inasmuch as, the imports shown therein were not of identical/similar goods and of similar quantities. With regard to reliance placed in the impugned order on the commercial invoice furnished by Shri Samrath Jit Singh, the Ld. Advocate submitted that period, quantity and quality of goods are not identical and accordingly, the imported goods under such invoice cannot be equated with the goods imported by the appellant. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ason that the period of import indicated there in was from September, 2011 to January, 2012. Similarly, the quantity of imported goods as per the e-mail was for 4000-5000 pieces; whereas, the imports made by the appellant was for approximately 15,000 batteries. Thus, the period of import and quantity of import are not identical. Further, we also find that there is no specific data available in the NIDB report that the goods are of identical/similar in nature and also the quality of the goods imported is not proportionate to the quantity mentioned in such data. Thus, value of subject goods imported in this case cannot be discarded and the same cannot be enhanced by placing reliance on the e-mail, NIDB and the invoices obtained from different....