TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 868
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....primary adjudicating authority. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is importer and had filed a Bill of Entry No. 5716639 dated 21.6.2016 for clearance of imported goods viz. Hair Dryer, Hair Straightener, Hair Treatment Clipper, Shavers, Knitted Lady Tops, Tungsten Carbide Tips, (in Kgs.), Tungsten Carbide rods, Power (Balancing) wheel, (Small Balancing Wheels) and Drill Bits etc. at assessable value of Rs. 31,84,945/-. On examination of these goods by the DRI, it was revealed that the Power Wheel (Small (Balancing) Wheel) was mis-declared as skates whereas the item, viz. Tungsten Carbide Tips, Tungsten Carbide rods and Drill Bits were not declared in the said Bill of Entry. The adjudicating authority rejected the decl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....1 However, the learned Advocate contests on the following grounds: (i) That, there is no estoppel in law to challenge the impugned order even after the duty, penalty and redemption fine have been paid by the appellant; (ii) That, the mis-declaration of skates, as held by the primary adjudicating authority, is bad in law on account of the fact that the skates and power balancing wheel is one and the same but for the minor difference in the nomenclature of the product. Merely, having the neutralised function the power balancing wheel does not seem to be going out of the general nomenclature of skates. The adjudicating authority had also concluded that the prices declared for power balancing wheel and skates were found align....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inciples of natural justice. The learned Advocate also placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Vs. CC, Mumbai - 2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC) to this effect; (iv) That, the confiscation of imported goods under Section 111 of Customs Act was bad on the ground that the appellant, had in their own assessment, declared the value which was found to be in comparable with NIDB data and, therefore, it cannot be alleged that there was a deliberate mis-declaration on the part of the appellant. Reliance was placed on the decision of Bansal Industries Vs. CC, Chennai - 2002 (147) ELT 967 (Tri.-Chennai) and Pushpak Metal Corpn. Vs. CC, Kandla, - 2014 (312) ELT 381 (Tri.- Ahmd.) and on the decisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms in addition to declared goods imported by the appellant. These goods were Tungsten Carbide Tips, Tungsten Carbide Rod and Drill Bits the reason for which has been given by the appellant that these were by mistake committed on the part of the shipper and for which they are not liable to be punished. In fact, a letter has been also submitted by the appellant stating that this was mistake on the part of the shipper and not by the appellant. However, the appellant has accepted the value and paid the duty granted on the behest of shipper regarding the other item for which the Customs valuation was arrived under Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules by conducting the market survey. It is on record that the market survey was conducted on 1.9.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lower to other genuine or high quality goods sold in the market. The above said rates were taken in presence of representative of CHA and as per verbal discussion only, however, the shop owner has refused to give anything in writing." 7. From the perusal of this market survey report, it is evident that the survey was conducted at various places who deals with the items imported namely, Sunil Trading Co. Sadar Bazar, Delhi, Balaji Store, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, Sunil Trading Co., Chawla Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, Global Overseas, Jama Masjid, Delhi, Modern Machinery Tools, Jama Masjid, Delhi and Super India Tools Store, Jama Masjit, Delhi. However, it is important to point out here that none of these traders have signed market survey report ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provided with the market enquiry report although the same was conducted in their presence. Having conducted market survey even in the presence of importer and CHA, there is a need for independent survey report to the importer. Therefore, the ratio laid down on this judgment is squarely applicable in this case. We find that in this case the appellant has also contested the enhanced value based on the market survey report. Although, the appellant had paid the duty along with fine and penalty on account of urgency of clearance of the imported goods. It is also evident from the record of the case that the lower adjudicating authority has not recorded the reason as to why he has resorted to the valuation under Rule 7 without the exhausting provi....