2020 (2) TMI 566

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stoms Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- each under Section 117 of the Customs Act on the Customs Broker. 2. Since the issue involved in both the appeal is identical and both the appellants are sister concerns, therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for discussion and disposal. The details of both the appeals are given herein below: Appeal No. Appellants OIO No. Bill of Entry Customs Duty C/20411/2019 M/s. Karachira Coir Manufacturers COC-CUSTM-000-APP-48/2018-19 dt.4.2.2019 No.7062957 dt.3.7.2018 Rs. 5,14,447/- C/20412/2019 M/s. Quality Traders COC-CUSTM-000-APP-49/2018-19 dt.4.2.2019 No.7569593 dt.9.8.2018 No....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l of Entry and ordered to draw samples for testing and confirming the PVC content and the samples were tested at CIPET and the CIPET vide their report No.18146 dated 2.8.2018 reported that PVC content is 51%. 4. Since the Revenue entertained a view that the appellant has indulged in undervaluation and mis-declaration, therefore, show-cause notice was issued to the importer on 27.8.2018 to show-cause as to why goods should not be confiscated under Section 111(i) and (o) and penalty should not be imposed under Section 112 (a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the declared value should not be rejected and re-fixed under provisions of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Importer filed detailed reply to the show-cause notice and after following....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....N Agreement between two sovereign states and if the department has any reason or doubt regarding the source of supply of material or supplier had committed any mistake while supplying the goods to India, appropriate steps should have been taken to blacklist the supplier for supply of goods under ASEAN Agreement than making false allegation against the appellant. The learned counsel also submitted that the other reason to reject the transaction value is that raw material for the product is Low-density Polyethylene (LDPE), Linear Low-density Polyethylene (LLDPE), etc., and the value of raw material ranges to USD 1180 to USD 1270 per Metric Tonne. Learned counsel submitted that this finding of the Commissioner in the impugned order is without ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion of the investigation officer without considering the value of the contemporaneous import is not a reason to allege undervaluation. If the transaction can be determined under Rule 4(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and does not fall under any exceptions under Rule 4(2), then valuation under subsequent Rules is out of question. Rule 4 allows for the transaction value to be determined on the basis of the identical goods and Rule 5 allows for the transaction value of similar goods imported into India at the same time. Further, as per Rule 4(3), if more than one transaction value of identical goods is found, lowest among such value shall be considered to determine the value of the goods. In support of his submissions, the learned cou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e without any basis. He has observed in the impugned order that it is available in the Public Domain that LDPE and LLDPE are the raw material for the impugned goods. Further, we find that even in the test report obtained by the Revenue from CIPET, Cochin, it is not mentioned that LDPE and LLDPE is the raw material for impugned goods. The information relied upon by the Commissioner available in the Public Domain is not admissible as evidence in law when there is a specific test report available of authorized agency. Further, the certificate issued by the manufacturer which is also on record, shows that LDPE and LLDPE is not the raw material for the impugned goods but the same has not been considered by the Commissioner. Further, we find that....