TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 552
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rse of business imported Ferro Nickel "Ni 18.89% to 21.08%" and filed Bill of Entry No. 4851539 dated 10.03.2014 under self assessment declaring the transaction value at Rs. 4,46,54,012.78 involving Custom duty of Rs. 88,65,501/-. 2. While verifying the self-assessment done by the importer, the proper officer subjected the goods to testing, to ascertain - (i) the true nature and composition of the goods and (ii) correct percentage of Ferro Nickel content. Therefore, this B/E was assessed provisionally by the proper officer against submission of test bond(s) under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. Representative sample(s) were drawn and forwarded to the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL), New Delhi for testing. (a) After co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rter M/s Jindal Stainless Ltd. for final assessment of the goods covered by B/E No.4861639 in the light of test report dated 28.03.2014 given by CRCL. The Adjudicating Authority passed an order No.13/JC/PPG/2016 dated 24.05.2016 whereunder he rejected the declared assessable value of Rs. 4,46,54,012.78 under Rule 12 of CVR 2007 and re-determined the assessable value as Rs. 5,09,54,796.52 under Rule 4 of the said Rules. He confirmed the differential duty of Rs. 12,50,942/- under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 along with interest besides imposing penalty of Rs. 1.25 lakh. 5. Aggrieved by the above Order-in-Original, the importer filed appeal with the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Customs House, New Delhi, who vide Orders-in-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....consignment of such large quantity. iv) He placed reliance on the following judgments:- a) Binani Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad (2004 (165) ELT 533 (Tribunal-Delhi) b) Commissioner of Customs (Exp),Goa Vs. VGM Exports (2013 (291) ELT 572 (Tribunal-Mumbai) c) CCE & ST, Noida (2018(12) TMI738 (SC) v) The Department's action to enhance the transaction value on the basis of Nickel content as per CRCL Test results is not legally valid and proper, because such enhancement is theoretical exercise and academic in nature. vi) Penalty is also not imposable in this case as there is no mis-declaration of value warranting confiscation of goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. Being aggrieved, the revenue h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ithout any basis. As per norm, the representative samples are always taken in small quantity for the purpose of testing. Further, such samples are drawn in presence of the importer or his representative. Admittedly, no objection was raised by the respondent - importer as regards drawal of sample. Thus, the request of retesting by the respondent is without any logic as the other sample or the representative sample was also drawn from the same consignment. Thus, the request for retesting, has been rightly rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. Reliance is placed on the Board Circular No. 43/2017 dated 16.11.2017. It was further contended that the CRCL Laboratory have the testing facility of ferro nickel and others as per letter dated 13.03.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee. It is further prayed by Revenue that the appeal may be allowed by way of remand and remanded to the original Adjudicating Authority with a direction to retest the sample and accordingly for passing of denovo adjudication order. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent opposes the appeal on the grounds raised in the first appeal as well as in the finding on the Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Counsel states that under the prescribed procedure it is right of the assessee - importer to request for retest of the remnant sample which admittedly they have exercised. Thus, denial of retest for no cogent reason amounts to denial of natural justice vitiating the order of the Adjudicating Authority. It is further urged that the rejection of tr....