TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 875
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ether for decision, since the issue in both of them is same. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants have imported certain spares of automobiles and filed Bills of Entry. In the appeal filed by M/s. Auto Stores the number of Bills of Entry were 6 and in case of the other appellant the number of Bills of Entry filed were 7. The said Bills of Entry were filed during the period from 2011 - 2012. Accordingly, both the appellants filed a total of 13 Bills of Entry. It appeared to Revenue that special valuation of the consignments was required for arriving at the assessable value. Therefore, investigations were taken up in the year 2011 - 12. After a gap of around five years, the appellants were issued with Show Cause Notices in 2016.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as held that the importer did not declare the brand, manufacturers' detail, country of origin and actual transaction value of the imported goods in the documents submitted for clearance of the goods and that it was found that the goods were branded and it was also found that the goods were undervalued when compared with the price data available in public domain and therefore he has held that the goods were undervalued by the appellant and he has enhanced the value and confirmed the customs duties proposed in both the Show Cause Notices. Further, he has confiscated the goods and gave option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine. He has further imposed penalty on the appellants. Aggrieved by such orders, the appellants are before t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e further submitted that the Revenue did not have any evidence that the appellants have made payment to the overseas exporters in addition to what was stated in the invoices and in the absence of any additional consideration flowing from the importer to the exporter overseas, under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962, transaction value has to be accepted. He has also relied on the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida Vs. Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2019 (365) ELT 3 (SC). He has relied on para 10 of the said ruling which is reproduced as follows:- "10. The law, thus, is clear. As per Sections 14(1) and 14(1A), the value of any goods chargeable to ad valorem duty is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the goods have been lying in the customs custody till now and the importers are put to great financial difficulty. He has requested for setting aside the impugned orders and assessing the goods at the value at which the Bills of Entry were filed. He also further relied on Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulation, 2009 and claimed that as provided under clause (l) of Regulation 6(1), since the goods were under detention by the orders of the proper officer for the purpose of investigation by SIIB, appellant should not be charged with any rent or demurrage under the said goods. He has further requested to order for early release of the goods. 5. Heard the ld. ARs for Revenue who supported the impugned orders. 6. Having considered the ....