AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 232
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er for a decision. The facts of the matter are that the appellants had imported bitumen 60/70 packed in iron drums and sought clearance of the same vide Bill of Entry No. 6010496 and 6008830 both dated 15.2.2012 and 6715611 dated 2.5.2012. for clearance of the imported consignment of bitumen 60/70 in the second instance the appellant had also filed 2 Bills of Entry No. 5784450 dated 20.1.2012 and 6313805 dated 21.3.2012 for clearance through ICD Jodhpur. In all these Bills of Entry, the classification of the imported consignment was declared under Customs Tariff Heading 2714 9090, the unit CIF value of the imported consignment was at USD 380 PMT. At the time of import, it was suspected that the imported consignment has been mis-declared wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y suspected that correct classification of the consignment need to be under Customs Tariff Heading 27132000 instead of 2749090. The Department reviewed the order of the original adjudicating authority and filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) Jaipur II who vide his order in original No. 10 (OPD) COS-JPR II/2013 dated 29.9.2013 allowed the Departmental appeal. The CESTAT vide its Final Order No. C/A/52313/2014 CU(DB) dated 26.5.2014 remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for re-adjudication giving the following orders:- "Prima facie reading of para 6, 7 and 8 of the appellate order combinedly throws light that there were two disputes before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) against the appeal of the Reve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been ordered to be enhanced from USD 380 PMT to USD 570 PMT. The appellants are before us against the above mentioned Order-in-Appeal. 5. At the outset, it would be relevant to mention that classification of the imported consignment under Customs Heading No. 2713 2000 have not been objected to or contested by the appellant. The only ground of contention is that the value of the consignment should not be increased to USD 570 PMT as other contemporary imports in India has been assessed at USD 380 PMT by the Department itself. The only ground of appeal on which the appellants have sought relief is that there have been certain clearances at ICD Jodhpur as well as ICD Mundra and ICD Ludhiana where the PMT price of bitumen 60/70 have been acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11) bitumen 60/70 60.15 380 ICD CONCOR Jodhpur 7 13.06.2012 (7098962) bitumen 60/70 101.42 380 MUNDRA 8 21.06.2012 (7172202) bitumen 60/70 101.43 380 ICD, Ludhiana 8. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not dealt with these imports in his Order-in-Appeal. We also find that the show cause notice dated 28.12.2018 issued in pursuance to this Tribunal's order dated 26.05.2014 does not even gave details as to why the transaction value declared by the appellant is not acceptable for the purpose of levy of Customs duty. The Customs Valuation Rules prescribe a specific drill which legally need to be undertaken in case the declared transaction value is not acceptable for the purpose of assessment. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustries (India) vs. Union of India reported under 2004 (171) ELT 299 (SC), wherein it has been held that: "4. .............In this regard, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has placed reliance upon Rule 5(3) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 which lays down that, "in applying this rule, if more than one transaction value of identical goods is found, the lowest such value shall be used to determine the value of imported goods". It has been submitted that while passing the original order and fixing the duty, the Settlement Commission has not taken into consideration value of lowest transaction value of the identical goods out of several transaction values of the identical goods produced before it. Learne....