TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (12) TMI 181
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the goods. There were actually five items namely, Zip in Coil, Plastic Zippers, Zipper Runners, Sealing tape and some assorted size zippers and pens supplied on FOC basis. The goods were supplied from China. The goods were initially examined and on the basis of the NIDB data, the assessable value declared by the Respondent was not accepted. Therefore on the basis of the NIDB data adopting a value of 20% below the such value under Rule 6, the goods were assessed. However, the Respondents were aggrieved and they filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who passed an Order-in-Appeal No. 122/06 dated 6-9-2006 and remanded the case back to the Original authority with certain observations. On remand, the Original authority passed an or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....35/Pc and has come to a conclusion that the goods are grossly Undervalued. Accordingly, the value enhancement was done by giving quantitative discounts up to 20% as per Rule 6 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and the same was appraised at Rs. 28/Pc. Further the compared goods as mentioned, pertain to 'Ideal' brand. But the same has no reputation/quality standards in the international market and carry no extra weightage for valuation. So the same can be treated as unpopular brand or unbranded goods. So the comparison of the same with the impugned goods is legal and has to be upheld. The data submitted by the importer is for subsequent clearances done at other ports and not at the time of importation. As there was no sufficient ground to defe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er which the valuation was fixed. Note 1 © to Rule 5 of CVR, 1988 read as "(c) Where no sale referred to in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of this rule is found, the transaction value of identical goods sold at a different commercial level or in different quantities or both, shall be, provided that such adjustments shall be made on the basis of demonstrated evidence which clearly establishes the reasonableness and accuracy of the adjustments, whether such adjustment leads to an increase or decrease in value." The Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the value enhancements without giving any substantial reasons, which is not correct, in view of the facts cited above. (iii) The Commissioner (Appeals) also held that relevance cannot be placed s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ational market and carries no extra weight for valuation and hence the same should be treated as unpopular brand or unbranded goods. It was argued that the value of the branded item cannot be taken as comparison for an unbranded item. It is supported by several decisions cited by the Respondent before the lower adjudicating authority and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has rightly taken into account the said decisions. (iii) It is totally incorrect to say that the Respondent has not afforded any explanation to the adjudicating authority. In fact the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has recorded that the Respondent has submitted copies of Bills of Entry where similar goods were cleared more or less at the same value in different po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....monstrate evidence that clearly establishes the reasonableness and accuracy of the adjustment, e.g. valid price lists containing prices referring to different levels or different quantities. It was argued that in the absence of such an objective measure, the determination of a value under the provisions of Rule 5 is not appropriate. In the present case the enhancement under Rule 6 is not on the basis of demonstrated evidence that clearly establishes the reasonableness and accuracy of the adjustment, e.g. valid price list containing prices referring to different levels and different quantities. (vii) The Commissioner (Appeals) had appreciated the fact that the NIDB data relied upon by the Department was not corroborated by relevant Bills ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n No.3 650000 Unbranded 0.13 17900 Branded 1.48 Declared price not accepted 5. No. 5 Slider 190000 0.22 31220 Branded 2.95 Declared price not accepted It is seen that in respect of the items in Sl. Nos. 1 and 2, ultimately the value declared by the Respondent has been accepted. As regards to the items in Sl. Nos. 3, 4 and 5, the same has not been accepted and based on the NIDB data, the values have been enhanced. The Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly given a finding that the commercial level of the NIDB data cannot be compared with the commercial level of the imports made by the Respondent. This is a very correct reasoning. In fact, when the Adjudicating authority has accepted the declared value in re....