TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 721
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the value declared by the appellants was not correct as compared to identical items imported earlier; queries were raised in the system; as the submission by the importer appeared to be without justification, it was proposed to assess the Bill of Entry in question as per Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962; an opportunity of personal hearing was accorded to the appellants; order-in-Assessment dated 26-10-2020 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, inter alia, holding that: * the appellants had imported identical goods viz. Integrated Circuits in the past; unit price declared by the appellants in Bill of Entry No 8784248 dated 11-09-2020 was USD 29.20; * the evidence furnished by the appellants in the form of techn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aim/prayer; it is then alone, that a party would be in a position to challenge the order on appropriate grounds. He submits that held in Vadilal Gases Ltd Vs Union of India 2016 (332) ELT 625 (Guj) the reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. 3. Learned Counsel submits also that in response to the query raised citing Bill of Entry No 8784248 dated 11-09-2020 , the appellants uploaded the copy of the bank remittance details through e-Sanchit, indicating the actual transaction value; appellants submitted that the item imported by them vide Bill of Entry No 8784248 dated 11-09-2020 at a unit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., they are identical; Integrated Circuit is a generic term and there are umpteen number of the said item depending upon the actual usage; evidence produced by the appellants in the form of WhatsApp conversation to indicate the actual usage of the item imported was overlooked; Assistant Commissioner had not made any independent enquiry with regard to the technical usage of the subject goods; * Whereas only 25 numbers were imported vide B/e 8784248 dated 11-09-2020, at unit price of USD 29.29, 23750 numbers were imported vide impugned B/s; therefore, both the imports cannot be treated as identical for purpose of assessment under Rule 4 of CVR, 2007. 5. Learned counsel submits further that Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sanjivani Non....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....after hearing importer. He submits that for this reason the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He further relies on (i). Nishant Enterprises Vs CC, Ghaziabad [2019 (370) ELT 1274 (Tri-All)] (ii). Auto Creators Vs CC, Chennai [2020 (373) ELT 681 (Tri-Chennai)] (iii). Guru Rajendra Metalloys India Pvt. Ltd Vs CC, Ahmedabad [2020 (374) ELT 617 (Tri-Ahmd)] (iv). Ebro Armaturen India Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE, Bangalore-I [2021 (375) ELT 259 (Tri-Bang)] (iv). Champion Photostat Industrial Corporation Vs CC, ICD, TKD, New Delhi [2021 (376) ELT 394 (Tri-Del) (v). Supreme Industries Ltd Vs Central Board Indirect Taxes & Customs [2021 (377) ELT 698 (Bom)] 6. Shri P. Gopkumar, Learned Authorised Representative, appearing for Revenue, reiter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gher price. Nothing is forthcoming in the impugned orders as to how they constitute identical goods except for the description. We find force in the contention of the appellants that the description IC is a generic one. We find that the department has not obtained any technical opinion on the impugned goods so as to examine the identical nature of the products. Department has not even alleged that there was flow of extra consideration, than the declared value, form the appellant to the overseas supplier, leave alone any evidence to that effect. Moreover, we find force in the argument of the appellants that the quantity imported is not comparable. Department is attempting to compare the value at which 23750 Nos of ICs were imported, with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usiness. In any case, this cannot be reason for rejecting the value of the impugned goods. In the absence of any technical opinion obtained, comparing the impugned goods with other goods, simply on the basis of description, is not acceptable. Moreover, as per Rule 4 of CVR, 2007 the transaction value of identical goods in a sale at the same commercial level and in substantially the same quantity as the goods being valued shall be used to determine the value of imported goods. In the instant case, the comparison of the quantities, betrays a complete mismatch. Therefore, the valuation arrived on the basis of so called identical goods is not legally sustainable. 10. We further find that the cases relied on the appellant are squarely applicabl....