TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 300
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal filed by M/s Shiv Ganesh Exim Pvt. Ltd. [the respondent] in respect of the four Bills of Entry, by which aluminium scrap was imported. 2. It transpires that four Bills of Entries were filed by the appellant in respect of import of Aluminium Scrap. The respondent self-assessed the duty, but the Assessing Officer prima facie did not accept the value and put a query to the respondent that the value of the aluminium scrap did not match the contemporary import data available on NIDB. The respondent was, therefore, asked to submit evidence in support of the accuracy of the price declared in the Bills of Entry. 3. The respondent submitted a reply to the aforesaid query and pointed out that the price declared was true and correct and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned authorized representative appearing for the department and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent have been considered. 9. In the instant case, reliance has been placed in the assessment order on Bills of Entry relating to contemporaneous imports of aluminium scrap at or near the time of import in comparable quantities as per the NIDB data. The Assessing Officer has on this basis and on the basis of the price shown by the London Metal Exchange, rejected the value and thereafter re-determined it under rule 9 of the 2007 Valuation Rules. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Assessing Officer is reproduced below :- "3. In reply importer on 05.5.2020 through EDI system submitted that "we have uploaded the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... declared the impugned goods as "Aluminium Scrap Taing Tabor as per ISRI". 5. From the above it is found that wherever the terms "Taint Tabor" in respect of Aluminium scrap is used it has a standard laid down specification of Aluminium scrap in the international market and accordingly value of the same depends on international market, in the instant case importer declared the goods as "Taint Tabor as per ISRI" and value shown as USD 950 PMT. However, the contemporaneous imports of "Aluminium Scrap Taint Tabor at or near the time of import in comparable quantities were at the higher at the higher value as per NIDB data, for clearance of Aluminium Scrap Taint Tabor from other port at or near the time of present import of comparable q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0USD (in USD) After assessment per Kg. (in Rs.) 1 7572781 dated 02.5.2020 17015 28.32 1283.36 99.65 ...... 9. From the above it is evident that in the present case the value declared by the importer is very much low in comparison to the contemporaneous imports of "Aluminium Scrap Taint Tabor at or near the time of import in comparable quantities, in comparison to the price of London metal exchange on the date of lading in the present case and also in comparison to value obtained from the procedure prescribed as above. Thus in the instant case the importer has mis-declared the value and therefore, the same cannot be considered true & correct transaction value for valuation purpose in terms of Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edly under the provisions of rule 9 of 2007 Valuation Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals), allowed the appeal by order dated 06.05.2021 for the following reasons :- "7.10 I find that in the order Assessing Authority has observed that the value declared by the appellant are very much low in comparison to the local market value, contemporaneous imports or near the time of import in comparable quantity, in comparison to the price of London metal exchange on the date of landing and thus, the Appellant had mis-declared the value. However, the assessing authority has not discussed the parameters or dimensions related with the nature of the products, which were required to be looked into while applying the value of products in local market ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Tri. - Bang.)] 7.13 In view of the above, I observe that in the entire order, there is no finding much less any evidence that appellant had paid any amount over and above the invoice value and the invoice value was vitiated by the non-commercial considerations and there was any mis-declaration in the consignments/documents, to warrant rejection of transaction value. I therefore hold that the rejection of Transaction value is unsustainable in law and similarly, enhancement of Assessable Value on the basis of DGoV circular issued on the basis of LME prices is also unsustainable. Hence, I conclude that in the present case, the assessing officer has acted in an arbitrary manner in rejecting the declared transaction value without estab....