2023 (6) TMI 155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Representative for the Appellant None for the Respondent ORDER The Revenue are in appeals against the impugned orders. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondents filed bills of entry for import of old and used worn clothing completely fumigated which was assessed after value enhancement, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties on the respondent. The adjudicating authority reasse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... import is allowed only against valid specific license. Therefore, the said goods are liable for confiscation. Accordingly, redemption fine and penalties were imposed. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed these appeals before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who affirmed that old and used worn clothing falling under Tariff Item 63090000 is restricted item as per Para 2.17 of Foreign Trade Policy,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....methodology. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the enhanced value on the ground that the transaction value was arbitrary rejected by the adjudicating authority without proper justification and resorted to Rule 9 of CVR, 2007 based on NIDB data for the period 26.1.1.2013 to 07.04.2014 as described in the adjudication order. It was held by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that NIDB data is not ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ods. Further, NIDB data cannot be the basis to enhance the declared value in the absence of any corroborative evidence or contemporaneous import. In that circumstances, we hold that the rejection of enhanced value by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order is correct. 4. We further take note of the fact that in the case of M/s Navpad Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin re....