TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 361
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Kg for Polyester Nylon Knitted Grey Fabrics 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.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al by M/s. MKS Shipping Agencies P Ltd., Tuticorin 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 unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng fabric Square Net 52" bright. [Compared with Nylon Knitted Fabrics] 9.2 Sai Enterprise 2 " Grey Warp Knitting Fabric, Square net 52" Semi 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 varieti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and penalty. According to the provisions of Rules 4 and 5 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, the value cannot be determined based on provisionally assessed goods. 11. Further, it is also contended that the lower adjudicating authority had failed to consider the details of various other contemporaneous 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ex Pvt. Ltd., Surat as under:- 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 Further, reliance is placed on the imports made by M/s. Star Mint Fields 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 c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y M/s. Star Mint Fields Pvt. Ltd., Surat which are found to be provisionally assessed. On this count also the enhancement of the declared value is not sustainable and is not in accordance with the provision of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. 21. We find that the proper officer can, on „certain reasons‟, raise doubts about the truth or accuracy of declared value and these certain reasons 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, ....