TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 392
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AIR Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in business of import and trading of mixed lot of 100% polyester knitted fabric (Rolls of Assorted Colour and Weight) from China. The appellant after negotiation with other suppliers entered into various sales contract for purchase of the above such fabric with their respective supplier at the rate of USD 1.3/kg to USD 1.8/kg. They filed bills of entry during the period 18.06.2015- 17.10.2016 for clearances of above said fabric declaring the assessable value as per the negotiated value. The goods were examined and found as per declaration. However, as per the assessing authority, the declared price was lower than the contemporaneous import price of similar goods and the goods ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t higher value without examining the applicability of Rule 5 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. He further submits that transaction value can be rejected only on the basis of evidence and only thereafter same has to be reassessed based on the evidence. In the present case, the only reason given is that contemporaneous import price on the basis of selected NIDB data relying on 4 bills of entry, being bill of entry no 5903304 dated 07.07.2016, 818826 dated 03/02/2015, 4627778 dated 18.03.2016, 4914245 dated 15.04.2016 and ignoring the large quantity of around 5500 mt covering 215 bills of entry under import. In these Bills of entry which has been relied upon either the goods are different or the quantity declared are meager as compared to huge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... available, recourse to Rule 5 was justified holding that the value of similar comparable goods with characteristics, components and application was taken as reference for re-determining the value of the imported goods by the proper officer. He submits that the Adjudicating Authority as well as the appellate authority has not supported any evidence as no exercise has been made as to on what basis the Ld. Assessing officer came to the conclusion that the imported goods with which the comparison is being made are comparable in characteristics, components and applications without bringing on record any such data on record. The value declared by the appellant should not have been rejected. He submits that while relying upon alleged contemporane....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- 2019 (365) ELT 3 (3) 4. Iron Master India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs, New Delhi- 2002 (149) ELT 145 (Tri.- Chennai) 5. Mark Auto Industries vs. Commr. of Cus., New Delhi- 2003 (162) ELT 261 (Tri.- Del.) 6. Bayer India Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus., Mumbai- 2006 (198) ELT 240 (Tri- Mumbai) 7. Pushpanjali Silk Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. of Cus., Chennai 2009 (238) ELT 135 (Tri.-Chennai) 8. Sarda Energy & Minerals Ltd. vs. Commr. of Central Excise Raipur- 2017 (348) ELT 489 (Tri.-Kolkata) 3. Shri Sameer Chitkara, Ld. Asst. Commr. (AR) reiterates the findings of the impugned order which is against the assessee and reiterates the ground of appeal in case of Revenue's appeal. He also placed reliance on following judgments: 1. Rajkumar Kni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of rule 3, the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value of similar goods sold for export to India and imported at or about the same time as the goods being valued : Provided that such transaction value shall not be the value of the goods provisionally assessed under section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. (2) The provisions of clauses (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1), sub-rule (2) and sub-rule (3), of rule 4 shall, mutatis mutandis, also apply in respect of similar goods. From the above provisions, it is clear that if there is any doubt about the transaction value declared by the assessee, then if at all the value of contemporaneous import needs to be applied, the value of identical goods or similar goods should be applied. Howe....