TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 335
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l No Appellant Impugned Order No Date Authority C/1086/2012 ESSFO IMPEX Pvt Ltd 672-679/MC H/JC/ CFS(M) / CH/2012 06.08.12 Commissioner (Appeal) Mumbai C/1087/2012 Rajeev Seth C/1088/2012 S K Dhawan C/1019/2012 ESSDEE Trading Co 435-436/MC H/AC/CFS(M ) (I)/2012 01.08.12 Commissioner (Appeal) Mumbai C/1020/2012 S K Dhawan C/1089/2012 Disha Enterprises 449-451/MC H/JC/CFS(M) (I)/2012 07.08.12 Commissioner (Appeal) Mumbai C/1090/2012 Rajeev Seth C/1091/2012 S K Dhawan C/85724/2013 Narendra Pal Sahdeva C/85848/2013 Decent Overseas 126/2012 27.11.12 Commissioner Customs (Import) Nhava Sheva C/85864/2013 S K Dhawan C/502/2012 Raghav Overseas 17/2011-12/ CAC/CCG/SL M 30.03.12 Commissioner Customs (Gen) Mumbai C/1017/2012 Nitin Overseas 454- 455/MCH/ JC/CFS(M)(I)/2012 07.08.12 Commissioner (Appeal) Mumbai C/1018/2012 Yashwanti Raghav 2.1 As is evident from the table above that these appeals have been filed by six companies and their Proprietor/ Directors/ Partners. Importers i.e. the Companies imported Brass Valve & Zinc Valves from Chi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in case of same appellants, decided the issue setting aside the demand made by alleging similar undervaluation, for the imports made by them during approximately the same period through Nhava Sheva and ICD Mulund. {S K Dhawan [2016 (344) ELT 436 (T-Mum)] ii. In the cases decided by the tribunal earlier same evidences were relied upon by the revenue for rejecting the transaction value and for redetermining the value of imported goods. However tribunal has set aside the demands made along with interest and penalties. iii. Since the issues involved in those appeals and the case under consideration are exactly identical, judicial propriety demand that this bench of tribunal should the said order of tribunal be followed for deciding these appeals. iv. He also relied on the following decisions wherein the manner of rejection of transaction value adopted by the revenue has not been agreed to. • South India Televisions (P) Ltd [2007 (214) ELT 3 (SC)] • Mahalaxmi Gems [2008 (231) ELT 198 (SC)] • Chaudhary Ship Breakers[2010 (259) ELT 16 (SC)] • Sanjivani Non Ferrous Trading Pvt Ltd. [2019 (365) ELT 3 (SC)] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the purpose of levy of Custom Duty is neither permissible nor admissible position in law as per the decision referred to by counsel for law. 4.3 In the case of S K Dhwan, Tribunal has recorded while deciding the case as follows- "3. Learned counsel appearing for all the appellants, after taking us through the entire case records would submit that the adjudicating authority has adopted a very novel way of redetermination of the value of the imported consignments inasmuch as the value of the basic raw material was considered for holding the charge of undervaluation based upon the statement given by Shri S.K. Dhawan who stated that valves content 70% of brass and 30% of zinc. It is his submission that the said findings of the adjudicating authority are totally erroneous as there is no test conducted on the goods imported to ascertain whether the Ball valves and Check Valves were having the content of brass and zinc as stated by Shri S.K. Dhawan. It is his further submission that the cost factor cannot be adopted for valuation, when the constituent of the imported consignments are not known; LME price cannot be relied upon as also the tariff value for scrap of brass and zin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rpose of valuation. He would submit that the raw material price of brass scrap and zinc scrap is more than the value of the imported consignment which would indicate that there was very heavy undervaluation. He would submit that such undervaluation is confirmed by Shri S.K. Dhawan in a statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 hence the argument put forth by the learned counsel needs to be discarded as Shri S.K. Dhawan has not retracted the statement. It is his further submission that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Customs v. Shibani Engineering Systems - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 453 (S.C.), specifically states the law, if transaction value of the goods imported are ridiculously low, totally unrealistic and the goods are imported from traders and price list of manufacturer are not produced, such transaction value needs to be discarded. 5. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 6. We find from the records that the issue involved is regarding the valuation of ball valves and check valves. The imports were made during the material period and the bills of entry were finally asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as mentioned. 7.2 Secondly, we find that the adjudicating authority has rejected the transaction value as filed by the appellant without any reasoning or finding. The only finding recorded by the adjudicating authority is that the said values are unrealistic and ridiculously low. To arrive at such finding the adjudicating authority has not brought on record any contemporaneous import of the same items. The provisions of Customs Act, 1962 are very clear on this point inasmuch as in order to reject the transaction value the least that is expected is to produce any evidence of contemporaneous import of higher value. In the case in hand, it is the submission of appellant-importer they had submitted details of contemporaneous imports of the same goods and the value seems to be more or less is same as declared by the appellant-importer is not addressed to and also surprising to note that the adjudicating authority has not recorded a single sentence of finding on such contemporaneous import detail given by the appellant. 7.3 Thirdly, we find that the adjudicating authority has come to a conclusion that there was undervaluation as the appellant-importer did not produce t....