TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1275
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctronic goods. 2. M/s. Opel Exports filed Bill of Entry No.3033471 dt. 29.08.2017, 3081942 dt. 02.09.2017, 3033472 dt. 29.08.2017 and 2972217 dt. 24.08.2017 for clearance of certain goods. These consignments were taken up for investigation by DRI on the suspicion that the consignments contained undeclared goods and also that the imported goods were misdeclared in terms of value and quantity. Goods were examined and the consignments were found to contain, in addition to the declared goods, certain undeclared goods. The investigating agency proceeded to determine the value of the imported goods for both declared as well as undeclared. The goods were also seized. 3. The importer approached the Customs Department for provisional release o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... valuation was mis-declared, even though the Departmental Authorities were having the right to re-determine the value. ii) He brought to our notice that the original value in the Bill of Entry was initially redetermined at the time of assessment of the Bills of Entry on the basis of NIDB data. He prayed that such valuation, being more reasonable, may be adopted for calculating the Bank Guarantee as a condition for provisional release of goods. iii) He relied on the recent Order passed by the Tribunal in the Misc. Order No.75822-75823/2018 dated 20.09.2018 in the case of Aman Exports vs. CC (Port), Kolkata, in which the Tribunal ordered provisional release of the seized goods on the basis of valuation based on NIDB Data. He prayed that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... iv) The value of the Bank Guarantee determined by the ld. Commissioner has been decided taking into account all these factors to safeguard revenue's interest and as such he prayed that impugned orders do not need interference. 7. Ld. Advocates in their rejoinder specifically mentioned that impugned orders were passed by the ld. Commissioner without even extending an opportunity of personal hearing to the importer. Further, from the valuation adopted by the DRI, it is not clear whether they have arrived at such valuation on the basis of brand to brand comparison. 8. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 9. The appellants have challenged the Orders passed by the Commissioner, Customs for provisional release of the sei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cuting the Bond backed by the Bank Guarantee as a condition for provisional release of the seized goods. For such purpose Tribunal has taken note of the range of values for the imported goods as appearing in the NIDB Database. Ld. Advocate, has submitted a similar compilation of NIDB data values said to be for contemporaneous period in respect of the goods covered in the present disputed consignments. However, we find that the dispute with the Customs Department has progressed to the next stage in as much as the show cause notice on the alleged customs offence has been issued by the DRI, on completion of investigation. The show cause notice has indicated the basis for redetermination of the value of the imported goods. Moreover, the Hon'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re meant for sale to the consumer, in which case, if an importer, who enjoys the facility of I. E Code imports certain goods in the normal course of business of the strength of a contract entered by such importer with either a consumer or a trader who eventually sells the imported goods to consumers. We do not understand what can be the legal objection for such a transaction especially where the import of such goods is otherwise not prohibited by law. At any rate, if the respondents have any tenable legal objection on that count, the respondents must pass an appropriate order indicating the legal basis on which the action is proposed and also the nature of the action proposed for such perceived violation of law on the part of the respondent....