TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 893
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....16.12.2016. 2. The facts of the case are that the DRI investigated certain imports of Melamine of Chinese Origin suspecting them to be mis-declared in value for the purposes of avoidance of Anti Dumping Duty (ADD) of Customs leviable vide Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in pursuance of Notification No.10/2010-Customs(ADD) dated 19.02.2010. 2.1 DRI conducted a PAN India investigation, which culminated in the issue of the subject Show-cause notice against the present respondent. DRI vide its Show-cause notice alleged the mis-declaration of the value of Chinese Origin Melamine imported by over invoicing to evade payment of incidence of ADD. 2.2 During the course of investigation, DRI recorded the statements of the proprietor of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g purposes and do not have any manufacturing activity of their own. The respondent submits that they have been importing Melamine of different country of origins, like, Japan, Qatar, Indonesia and New Zealand. The import of such Melamine is on the same price level as that of Chinese origin and therefore, it can be safely inferred there-from that the price of their imports of Chinese Origin Melamine were fair and acceptable. 3.1 In so far as the Department's plea of a pattern in the assessee not having imports of Chinese Origin Melamine sometime from 2013 directly from China, is suspected for reasons of avoidance of ADD, it is their contention that after, 2013, the noticee was driven by the commercial considerations including the rate avail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent and their suppliers was not an arm length sale and the same was of no relevance between the buyers and the suppliers [referred to Rule 2(2) of CVR, 2007]. They finally submitted that the Department has not been able to indicate even a single case of payment being made beyond banking channels through Letter of Credit as contracted between two parties. 3.4 In support of its defence, the respondent has relied on certain case laws to submit that the price list itself is no evidence for import of goods at prices mentioned. They rely on the following case laws : (i) Noble International Vs. CCE : 2001 (127) ELT 754 (CEGAT); (ii) Wavein India Vs. CCE : 2001 (137) ELT 257 (CEGAT) ; (iii) Apar Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Cu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns driving imports of Chinese Origin Melamine through Malaysia and Hong Kong. It is on record that the seller of Malaysia and Hong Kong of subject consignments were not related to the respondent and all payments were made to suppliers by them through Letter of Credit/through Banking Channels. There is no evidence for payment of extra sums over and above the declared values. Thus it does not come out that the invoice price was not the sole commercial consideration. The Department has not produced even a single piece of evidence to suggest any parallel invoicing to prove that the goods were misdeclared to evade ADD or the backflow of the alleged variation in prices made to overseas suppliers. The fact of analyzing import data of melamine post....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etc. is necessary. 6. The respondent has relied on the contemporaneous import value, mentioning that the landed cost of goods as per the Department's Data Base itself that will hold good to undo the charges of misdeclaration. We find that there is no certain, clear and direct evidence for the rejection of the declared assessable value, under the control of the Department. Moreover, the fact of adopting two different assessable values for levy of different duties itself dismisses the contention of the Revenue. Having accepted the declared assessable value for the purposes of quantifying Basic Customs Duty, the same cannot be rejected while imposing ADD on the basis of re-determined. As per Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, there is only ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on contemporaneous import values indicating lower landed values as well as ICIS data. They have applied Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules accordingly for redetermination of values. Rule 12 of the Valuation Rules allows for the proper officer to doubt the declared value, if among other things, there were similar imports at significantly higher value/s and if so, the declared value can be rejected. The other grounds for rejection of declared value/s involve suspicions of undervaluation, mis-declaration and manipulation of documents. In the subject case, though there are grounds for suspecting mis-declaration of value as ICIS data did show lesser values during the relevant period (2013 & 2014) and the import landed values of M/s. Kiran Trading Co....