2023 (11) TMI 178

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commissioner, vide Order-in-Original No. 03/2013-A.C.(Imports) dated 27.03.2013. 2. Heard Dr. S. Krishnanandh, Ld. Advocate for the assessee and Shri Harendra Singh Pal, Ld. Assistant Commissioner for the Revenue. 3. Upon hearing both sides, we find that the only issue that is to be decided by us is: whether the rejection of the declared value by the Revenue is in order and consequent determination of the value by the original authority could be accepted? 4.1 The assessee had filed a Bill-of-Entry bearing No. 9236906 dated 06.02.2013 for the import of - (i) 990 Pcs of "Uber Brand Induction Cooker with 1 PCT Free Spare Parts Model No. UB001IC (2000W)" and (ii) 1170 Pcs of "Uber Brand Induction Cooker with 1 PCT Free Spare Parts Model No. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ue by the original authority, the present appeal has been filed before this forum. 6. The issue in the present appeal lies on a very narrow compass. The reason for the Assistant Commissioner to reject the declared value is solely based on the NIDB data and other than this, we do not find any contemporaneous imports of similar goods declaring higher value having been referred to, by the said authority. Moreover, it is a fact borne on record that the appellant had tried to impress upon the Assistant Commissioner by furnishing imports of similar goods by various other importers, the value of which almost matched with that of the appellant before us, but however the same has not at all been considered by the said authority. 7.1 It is the sett....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the quantity of import in respect of the contemporaneous imports. Hence, so-called contemporaneous imports were in fact in comparables, due to which the rejection of the value of import as declared by the appellant is without any basis. 8. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the re-determination of the import value by the Revenue is without any basis and certainly not in accordance with the spirits of law, for which reasons the same deserves to be set aside." 7.2 A similar view was also expressed by this Bench in the case of M/s. Shah B Impex v. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai [Final Order No. 40917 of 2023 dated 12.10.2023 in Customs Appeal No. 40823 of 2014 - CESTAT, Chennai], the relevant portion of which is rep....