TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 361
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....brics was considered low compared to the contemporaneous imports which were valued at US$ 8.55 per kg for "Grey Warp Knitting Fabrics" specification square net 52" "semi dull" and US$ 9.2 per kg for "grey warp knitting fabric" specification square net 52" "bright" in respect of Invoice No. H07HD054 dated 31.05.2011 of Fujian Holy Trading Company Ltd., China pertaining to the importer M/s. Sai Enterprise, Surat which were imported thorugh Nhave Sheva, Mumbai. 2. On examination, it was found that the imported consignment contained 1976.10 kgs of square net fabrics with slip as "Semi Dull" and 8511.9 kgs of square net fabrics with slip as "Bright". 3. Further, the Revenue noticed two imports of Warp Knitted Fabrics at Tuticorin by M/s. Sainath Knittex Pvt. Ltd., Surat where the value declared of Nylon Warp Knitted Fabrics was at US$ 9.0 and US$ 7.22 respectively. The consignment under seizure was bought on high seas sales basis by M/s. Murugan K.S., on 15.11.2011 from M/s. Sainath Knitex P Ltd., Surat, and value declared by them for the said consignment of Chinese Origin received under the invoice of Ms. J.S. Fashions, Dubai was at US$ 5.15/Kg. Further, the Revenue believed that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n CHA regarding the penalty imposed on them as above. 5.2 Being aggrieved, the appellant have filed an appeal with the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli who rejected their appeal. As such Mr. K.S. Murugan (appellant) came on appeal before this forum. 6. The appellant has submitted the following contentions as revealed from their reply to the Show Cause Notice and also the grounds of appeal. (i) The proposal for rejection of the declared value and enhancement of value was misconceived and contrary to specific legal provisions in the Customs Act and Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 as well as the law laid down in the case of M/s. Eicher Tractors Ltd., [2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC)]. The imported goods need to be assessed to Customs Duty at their transaction value, unless for valid reasons for rejection of the same. In order to reject the transaction value, the circumstances enumerated in Rule 3(2) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 should warrant and it is mandatory on the part of the Department to indicate under which provision of Rule 3(2) of Valuation Rules, the trans....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emi Dull [Compared with Polyester Nylon Knitted Fabric] 8.55 " * In the Show Cause Notice, DRI had relied on imports made by M/s. Sainath Knitex Pvt. Ltd. S. No. B/E No. & Date Commodity Supplier Value Decl. by Importer in USD Value assessed in USD 1 4775029/28.09.2011 Nylon Warp Knitted Fabrics (Semi Dull) Fujian Zhongi 7.30 9.0 2 5038412/28.10.2011 Nylon Warp Knitted Fabrics (Grey) J.S. Fashions 7.22 7.22 * DRI had considered the following imports made by M/s. Star Mint Fields P Ltd., Surat in Tuticorin Port. S. No. B/E No. & Date Commodity Value Decl. by Importer per Kg in USD Value assessed per Kg in USD 1 5520049/21.12.2011 Nylon Warp Knitted Fabrics 8.9 8.9 2 5529220/21.12.2011 Nylon Warp Knitted Fabrics 8.9 8.9 3 5136305/09.11.2011 Nylon Polyester Fabrics 7.8 7.8 4 5515840/20.12.2011 Polyester Nylon Fabrics 7.8 7.8 (iv) There are different varieties of Nylon Warp Knitted Fabrics and department‟s comparison is only on the basis of general description and not on specific varieties as each variety fetches different prices. In the absence of details and the variety of the fabrics, comparing the value of fabrics and dra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imports and when more than one transaction value is noticed, the lowest value shall be used to determine the value of the imported goods. 12. The appellant had put forth that the imported fabrics are still lying in the custody of the department and the quality deteriorated due to prolonged storage which also to be considered before passing the order on the dispute. 13. The appellant / importer Mr. Murugan K.S. during the hearing before this Tribunal had put forth that despite producing evidence in the form of contemporaneous imports of similar / identical goods at around the same prices which were imported through Tuticorin before the original adjudicating authority and also the appellate authority, could not get any relief on the issue of valuation and the impugned imported goods continue to be with the Department for more than ten years. He has produced the Assistant Commissioner‟s letter dated 19.11.2018 to indicate that the contemporaneous imports considered by the Revenue for enhancement of value pertaining to M/s. Star Mint Fields P Ltd were provisionally assessed and are still pending for test report and the valuation rules do not permit enhancement basing on the val....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pvt. Ltd., Surat as under:- S. No. B/E No. & Date Commodity Value Decl. by Importer per Kg in USD Value assessed per Kg in USD 1 5520049/21.12.2011 Nylon Warp Knitted Fabrics 8.9 8.9 2 5529220/21.12.2011 Nylon Warp Knitted Fabrics 8.9 8.9 3 5136305/09.11.2011 Nylon Polyester Fabrics 7.8 7.8 4 5515840/20.12.2011 Polyester Nylon Fabrics 7.8 7.8 17. The appellant has contended that the Department‟s comparison is only on the basis of the general description and not on specific varieties as each variety fetches different prices. In the absence of all the commercial details and information as to the type and variety of the fabrics imported, comparing the value of fabrics to draw any conclusion is basically incorrect and un-sustainable. The appellant also has argued that in connection with the impugned imports, he has produced manufacturer‟s invoice and to this effect, he has given a copy of the personal hearing held by the lower adjudicating authority. We find that appellant has explained at what rate M/s. J.S. Fashions (L.L.C), Dubai sold to M/s. Sainath Knitex Pvt. Ltd., Surat and at what rate he has purchased on "High Seas Sales" basis along wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sons can be higher value of identical / similar goods of comparable quantities in a comparable transaction, abnormal discounts or abnormal deduction from competitive prices, mis-declaration on parameters such as description, quality, quantity, country of origin, year of manufacture or production, non-declaration of parameters such as brand and grade and fraudulent or manipulated documents. In these appeals, the only reason for rejecting the transaction value is on account of noticing higher values of the contemporaneous imports. However, while determining a particular import to be considered as a contemporaneous import for enhancement, it is necessary to match all commercial level details like quality, quantity, type whether under a contract, physical characteristics, brand, reputation, country of origin, time of import, stock lot sale, manufacturers sale, etc. This is a necessary requirement. Merely giving the details of the Bills of Entry may be of identical / similar goods or of same country of origin and may be at the same time would not be sufficient because the transaction values are affected by various commercial factors like the quantity imported, the quality differences, r....