TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 764
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....16th February 2018. The consignment was covered under the Invoice dated 30th January 2018, having a total value of USD 20,353 (CF). The invoice was issued by M/s.Guilin Zhishen Information Technology Co. Ltd. in China. 2. Out of the 4 different categories of goods, the dispute is about 3 categories, the description of which is as under : Item Sr. No. Description of Goods Customs Tariff Head Qty. in PCS Unit price in USD Assessable Value (in INR) Customs Duty (in INR) 1. Camera Stand (3 Axis Stabilizer- CRA02, Unpopular Brand) 9620 0000 180 55 777640.67 240913.10 2. Camera Stand (3 Axis Stabilizer- CRA01, Unpopular Brand) 9620 0000 110 45 388820.34 120456.50 3. Dual Handle (Unpopular Brand, Parts of Camera Stand) 8529 9090 50 10 39274.78 12167.30 3. On the basis of the Intelligence, the goods were examined 100% by SIIB officers. It was alleged that the goods were grossly undervalued. After taking representative samples, the goods were detained for further investigation. On 21st February 2018, the goods were seized on the ground that the same were found to be mis-declared and undervalued. Statements under Section 108 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng for the appellant has taken us through the impugned order. His first submission is that the review order passed by the Committee of Commissioners under sub-section (2) of Section 129A was hopelessly time-barred as the same was passed after a lapse of more than 10 months from the date of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). His second submission is that CESTAT completely ignored the definitions of 'identical' and 'similar' goods under the Valuation Rules. He submitted that the finding that the goods imported by the appellant in the past were similar or identical is completely erroneous, as the earlier goods purchased were not comparable at all. Coming to the first Item of the Camera Stand (3-axis Stabilizer- CRA02, Unpopular Brand), he submitted that the said Item was completely different from the Item imported by the appellant with a Bill of Entry dated 13th November 2017, which was described as "Camera Stand (Zhiyun Crane 2 Model CRA02)". He submitted that the hardware and software for both Items were different. The appellant submitted a detailed technical letter dated 12th December 2017 issued by the manufacturer, which indicates that the first item was of an unpopular bra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mported under the subject Bill of Entry and the earlier imports. He submitted that, as regards all three Items, the earlier imported Items were more or less the same. The manufacturer has described the goods subject matter of the impugned Bill of Entry as an unpopular brand. He submitted that in the order-in-original, the adjudicating authority had recorded a finding of fact that Item nos. 1 and 3 imported by the appellant were identical and Item no.2 was of similar goods. The goods in Item no.3 were identical to the goods earlier imported. He submitted that the said finding of fact has been reaffirmed by the CESTAT, and therefore, no interference is called for. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS 7. We have considered the submissions made across the Bar. We also perused the submissions in "brief", running into 35 pages filed by the appellant before the CESTAT. The first issue is of the bar of limitation in the exercise of powers under sub-section (2) of Section 129A. Sub-section (2) incorporates the powers of the Committee of Commissioners of Customs. If the said Committee is of the opinion that an order passed by the Appellate Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs (Appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Noida v. Sanjivani Non-ferrous Trading Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 2 SCC 378. Paragraph 10 of the said decision reads thus : - "10. The law, thus, is clear. As per Sections 14(1) and 14(1-A), the value of any goods chargeable to ad valorem duty is deemed to be the price as referred to in that provision. Section 14(1) is a deeming provision as it talks of "deemed value" of such goods. Therefore, normally, the assessing officer is supposed to act on the basis of price which is actually paid and treat the same as assessable value/transaction value of the goods. This, ordinarily, is the course of action which needs to be followed by the assessing officer. This principle of arriving at transaction value to be the assessable value applies. That is also the effect of Rule 3(1) and Rule 4(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules, namely, the adjudicating authority is bound to accept price actually paid or payable for goods as the transaction value. Exceptions are, however, carved out and enumerated in Rule 4(2). As per that provision, the transaction value mentioned in the bills of entry can be discarded in case it is found that there are any ....