2024 (9) TMI 1180

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ied tiles of two sizes from China under 16 Bills of entries and alleging undervaluation, the assessment of the bills of entry were carried out by loading the value on the ground that as per the information available in NIDB, similar goods were imported from China and cleared through various ports at a much higher price. When appeal was filed, adjudication authority held that once goods are assessed and if importer cleared the goods by paying duty, proper officer could not reassess the duty under Section 17(4), thus the assessment is deemed to have attained finality. Further, the appellate authority also held that the value adopted by the assessing officer is based on similar goods from other countries and under comparable quantity during si....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... iii) Unik Traders Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin reported in 2023 (386) E.L.T. 759 (Tri.-Chennai) iv) M/s. Atlantis Trading Company Vs. Commr. of Customs,  Tuticorin-2023 (11) TMI 178-CESTAT Chennai v) Eicher Tractors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C) vi) C.C.E & S.T., Noida Vs. Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2019 (365) E.L.T. 3 (S.C) vii) Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta Vs. South India Television (P) Ltd.-2007 (214) E.L.T. 3 (S.C). 3. As regarding adopting the value from NIDB data, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of Agarwal Foundries (P) Ltd.(supra), which was approved by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... department has failed to substantiate as to how the value adopted on the basis of NIDB data is comparable in the absence of details required in the nature of name of manufacturer, country of origin etc., to arrive at contemporaneous price. The facts being so, we are of the view that there are no sufficient reasons to reject the transaction value and for the enhancement of value. The demand of differential duty cannot be sustained and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do." 8. Further, in the matter of M/s. Atlantis Trading Company, it has been held that:- "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 da....