2024 (4) TMI 78

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 11.02.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) by which the three appeals filed by the appellant against the enhancement of value in three Bills of Entry have been dismissed. 1.1 The facts of the case are that Appellant have filed Bills of Entry in EDI system for clearance of quantity of "Quinizarine" from china declaring the Assessable value as US $ 9.5 per kg. and seeking utilization of MEIS authorization towards debiting Basic Customs Duty and paying IGST in cash. During the course of assessment of filed Bills of Entry, it was found that the importer had imported the goods declaring the value of US$9.5 per Kg. of the 'Quinizarine', which appeared to be very less compared to the regular contemporary imports of the same pro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd decided to enhance the declared value of 9.5 US $ to 12.5 US $ based on earlier import in the Month of August 2019 and assessed the Bill of Entry by way of impugned orders. 2.1 He also submits that the buyer and seller are not related and the price of the imported goods declared was the sole consideration and there exists no other conditions specified in the Section 14(1) read with Rules made in this regards. Accordingly the value has to be considered in terms of Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. He placed reliance on the decisions of Commissioner of Customs, Excise & Service tax, Noida Vs. Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt. Ltd. - 2019(365)ELT 3 (SC) 2.2 He also argued that as provided in Section 14(1) the value of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....its that in the present matter Ld. Commissioner has not commented on the decisions relied upon by the appellant. Surbhit Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - 2012(283)ELT 556 (Tri. Mumbai) ACE Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur -2018(360)ELT 938 (Tri. Delhi) Commissioner of Customs, Excise and Service tax, Noida Vs. Sanjivani Non -Ferrous Trading Pvt. Ltd. -2019(365)ELT 3(SC) 3. Shri Ashok Thanvi, Learned Assistant Commissioner (Authorised Representative) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. We find that the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....time of export from China to India. Clearly, this vital point raised by the appellant has not been considered either by the Lower Adjudicating Authority or by the Ld. Appellate Authority. 4.1 However, in the present case though the Bills of entry of contemporaneous import were relied upon, the adjudicating authority failed to consider the circumstance of the variation of the price of the imported goods existed at the time of export from China to India. Further we also noticed that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding on the reason of price variation of goods submitted by the Appellant. It is also observed that other than Bills of entry of contemporaneous import, there is no other evidence to show that the assessee have su....