TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1676
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by M/s Nicomet Tinplate/steel BV. The respondent importer filed the above mentioned bill of entry at the declared price USD 250 PMT for the purpose of payment of Customs duty. The appraising group, however, did not accept the price declared by the respondent importer, which was found to be lower than the comparative price available in National Import Database (NIDB) on which the bill of entries were assessed in past. The assessing group, therefore, raised the query which is as under: Sl. No. Bill/Bills of Entry No./Nos. Query Reply 7. 9873145 Please specify the item under importation by mentioning: 1. What kind of surface defects/internal faults (physic-chemical faults) are present in the item under importation. The value appears to be on lower side, please explain the value. Sir, our declared value is true transaction value. We have imported goods directly from MFG authorised representative. Defective goods are not comparable and without rejection our transaction value under Sec. 3(2) you cannot travel to any other rules NIDB data has not relevancy and contamporus goods are available for comparison. We agree to enhance to your proposed value as goods are incurring por....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant and the case at hand and that of the Eicher Tractors Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable on the following grounds. (a) The supplier in the case of Eicher Tractor Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - 2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC) was manufacturer but not the representative of the manufacturer. (b) There was the additional factor that the stock in question was old and it was a one time sale of 5 year old stock. (c) All relevant evidences to the aforementioned facts were submitted by the importer to the adjudicating authority at the time of assessment order. (d) The appellant gave a detailed reply setting out the facts noted earlier before the adjudicating authority. (e) Further, the case was decided where there was no provision of rejection of Transaction value under CVR, Rules, 1988, the clause of rejection of Transaction Value was added to CVR Rule, 1988 vide Customs notification No. 10/98-Cus.(NT) dated 19.2.1998. Hence, the case laws cited in the impugned order is not of any relevance. (iv) In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the various judgements, however, the same is not relevant to the fact of the case on the ground that the resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he declared value of imported goods from the declared value of USD 250/- to USD 515/-. The speaking order was issued on 21.6.2017 which was appealed and the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the impugned adjudication order and ordered for the assessment of the impugned Bill of Entry at the declared price. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the provisions of Section 17 of Customs Act does not preclude the importer from filing an appeal against the enhancement placing reliance in the case of Digitech Photocopier Vs. CC, Mumbai - 2009 (233) ELT 425 (Tri.-Del.). The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is reproduced as under: "6. Contention of the Revenue is also that the appellants accepted the enhanced value, therefore, he has no right to challenge the same. We find from the correspondence between the appellants and the Asst. Commissioner of Customs that the Appellants Vide letter dated 20-1-2004 had informed the Revenue that they had already suffered detention charges of Rs. 2,42,000/- and demurrage of Rs. 25,000/-. In these circumstances they were forced to accept the decision taken by the authorities. Since the goods were under detention, therefore, acceptance of value a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o appeal is a statutory right under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 and cannot be curtailed by relying on the case of Advanced Scan Support Technologies (supra) in the case wherein there was no contest by the appellant. It is settled law that the that the value cannot be enhanced on the basis of NIDB price alone which has rightly been relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in this order, the relevant paragraph which is as under : "21. It is settled law that the value cannot be enhanced on the basis of NIDB data. In the case of Commissioner of Customs New Delhi Vs. D.M. International reported in 2013 (289) ELT 169 (Tri.-Del.), the following has been held: "5. We find that there is no dispute that the customs has power to reject the transaction value and enhance the assessable value in terms of Customs Valuation Rules. However, such rejection of transaction value and enhancement of assessable value has to be on the basis of some evidences on record. Contemporaneous imports have to be considered with reference to quality, quantity and country of origin with the imports under consideration. It has been held in a number of decisions that NIDB data cannot be made the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing value has to be adopted. In any case, the Tribunal has observed that NIDB data cannot be held to be the proper basis for enhancement of the value. 9. When we apply the ratio of the above decisions to the facts of the present case, we find that Revenue has not made any efforts to reject the transaction value. There is virtually no evidence on record to indicate that the value agreed upon between the importer and the exporter is not correct or any consideration of the goods has flown back to the exporter from the appellant. If that be so, we agree with the learned Advocate that the transaction value would reflect the correct assessable value of the imported items. Otherwise also, we find that the reliance by the lower Authorities on the NIDB data is not correct. Apart from above two referred decisions, there is catena of decisions holding so. As such, we are of the view that the impugned orders are not proper and justified." Also in the case of B.N. Exports Industries Vs. CC (Port), W.B. reported in 2002 (144) ELT 619 (Tri.-Kolkata), Hon'ble CEGAT held as under in para 5: "5. After carefully considering the submissions made from both the sides, we agree with the ld. Consult....