TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1334
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1/378/385 etc.) based on contemporary prices in NIDB data. Adjudication orders on those lines issued by original authority were appealed by the appellants. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned orders upheld the orders of original authority. Hence, these appeals filed by M/s Agarwal Foundries Pvt. Ltd. (AFPL). Appeal wise details of O-I-A, Bill of Entry, declared invoice values and enhanced assessable values as submitted by appellants are as under: S.No. Appeal No. Impugned OIA No. Bill of Entry No. Date Invoice value in USD per MT Enhanced value (USD) adopted by Customs per MT 1 C/30995/2016 HYD-CUS-OOO-APP-068 8659316 20.03.15 281 430 2 C/30966/2016 HYD-CUS-OOO-APP-069 9065243 28.04.15 250 430 3 C/30967/2016 HYD-CUS-OOO-APP-070 9065253 28.04.15 250 430 4 C/30968/2016 HYD-CUS-OOO-APP-071 9138273 06.05.15 288 430 5 C/30999/2016 HYD-CUS-OOO-APP-072 8954946 8954981 8955259 9251705 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....29540 16.07.15 16.07.15 25.07.15 25.07.15 259 259 259 259 430 430 430 430 3. On 29.01.2018, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of both these appellants, Ld. Advocate Shri R. Muralidhar made common oral and written submissions, which can be briefly summarized as under: i) MS scrap is procured from the traders and not from manufacturers. It is not the case of the Department that appellant has paid any extra amount to the overseas exporter, other than what has been mentioned in the invoice. ii) MS scrap is generated in the course of manufacturing products and in the nature of shavings from the MS items used by the manufacturer. The overseas manufacturers generally dispose off the scrap to the dealers and the importers have to buy such scrap only from such scrap dealers and not from manufacturers, hence the rates negotiated with them cannot be taken as false. iii) The Customs Department, without proper justification, enhanced the value to USD 430 per MT, which is more than the transaction value entered into with the overseas exporter. iv) Since the production....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne import. In all these appeals, enhancement of declared value has been done after due process of law and declared valuations have been rejected under rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 based on contemporary value under rule 9 of CV Rules. 6.1) Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 6.2) In all these cases, the imported goods are MS Steel (turning shredded scrap). The Customs Department has taken the view that the declared import values cannot be relied upon since they are based on invoices issued by traders and not at the manufacturers of such scrap. Based on this premise, the declared import values have been rejected and enhanced to higher level on the basis of purported contemporary import values found in the NIDB data. This enhancement is the bone of contention in all these appeals. 6.3) MS Steel (turning shredded scrap) is generated in the course of manufacture of finished goods eg; machinery. Appellants right from the beginning, have been crying hoarse that such scrap is disposed of by concerned manufacturers to traders and that they have to necessarily buy such scrap only from the traders at the prevalent market rate. This assertion has not been dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....transaction value and enhancement of assessable value has to be on the basis of some evidences on record. Contemporaneous imports have to be considered in reference to quality, quantity and country of origin with the imports under consideration. It has been held in a number of decisions that NIDB data cannot be made the basis for enhancement of value. Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon various decisions of the Tribunal for holding any enhancement in assessment value, the transaction value to be first rejected based on legal permissible ground as indicated in the valuation Rules. He has also referred to Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CC - 2000 (122) ELT 321 (S.C) in support of his finding that transaction value cannot be rejected without clear and cogent evidence produce by the department with regard to quality, import of origin and place and time of import. We find that in their memo of appeal, Revenue has not advance any such evidences to support their case, inasmuch as, no evidence of rejection of transaction value stands produced by the authority, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....519-50520/2017 to the present case. In other words, the assessing officer having noticed higher value of contemporaneous import raised the doubt regarding the correctness of declared value. The legal provisions mentioned in the Explanation clearly stipulates that the contemporaneous value should be significantly higher for identical or similar goods at or about the same time, in a comparable commercial transaction. We find in the present case due examination about this crucial aspect has not been done by the assessing officer and comparison based on the contemporaneous import is not proper. Further, the contractual arrangements and invoices should not be rejected in the absence of any evidence to question their authenticity. As submitted by the appellants, NIBD data is a guidelines and an indicator for the assessing officer and it cannot be a substitute for assessable value. The assessable value for imported items has to be invariably arrived at applying Section 14 read with Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. 7. We also note that the reliance placed by the appellant on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Topsia Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai - 2015 (330) ELT 799 (Tribunal....