TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1372
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8.2016, 6330360 dated 11.08.2016, 6541256 dated 30.08.2016, 6541439 dated 30.08.2016, 6626218 dated 06.09.2016, 6626220 dated 06.09.2016, 6748359 dated 16.09.2016, 6959059 dated 03.10.2016, 7082365 dated 14.10.2016, 9475540 dated 27.04.2017, 2217833 dated 23.06.2017, 2490594 dated 17.07.2017, 2490580 dated 17.07.2017, 2701109 dated 07.08.2017 and 2924736 dated 21.08.2017. The appellant declared Rs. 0.112 to 0.165/bulb for LED Rs. 0.092 to 0.106/ bulb for Non LED Christmas Lights. 3. On the basis of investigation initiated by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), it was gathered by the Departmental Officials that imports of Christmas Lights have been grossly undervalued by importers all over the country and a recommendation was made to accept the value of Christmas Light with LED bulb and non-Led bulb as Rs. 0.55 per bulb and Rs. 0.30 per bulb respectively. However, since most of the importers did not agree but disputed such value, the Department resorted to provisional assessment against PD Bond backed by cash security/ bank guarantee of 20% of differential duty. Accordingly, the imported consignments were released provisionally against payment of admitted duty of Rs. 71,90....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by various judicial fora. In particular, reliance has been placed by him on the following judicial pronouncements rendered by the Tribunal: - i. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata v. Bajaj Writing Aid [Final Order No. 77599 of 2023 dated 31.10.2023 in Customs Appeal No. 78945 of 2018 - CESTAT, Kolkata] ii. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata v. Profile Overseas [Final Order No. 77598 of 2023 dated 31.10.2023 in Customs Appeal No. 78941 of 2018 - CESTAT, Kolkata] iii. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata v. Paras Enterprises [Final Order No. 77467 of 2023 dated 09.11.2023 in Customs Appeal No. 78946 of 2018] iv. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata v. Zenith Home Appliances [Final Order No. 77542 of 2024 dated 14.11.2024 in Customs Appeal No. 76797 of 2019 - CESTAT, Kolkata] v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata v. Prabhu Electrical Industries [Final Order No. 75543 of 2025 dated 28.02.2025 in Customs Appeal No. 76788 of 2019 - CESTAT, Kolkata] 4.2. In view of the above, the Ld. Consultant for the appellant prays for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal, on merits. 5. The Ld. Authorized Repres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals) has gone through the facts and statutory provisions and has held as under: 20. I also find that in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata Vs. M/s. Krishna Wax Pvt. Ltd. wherein Hon'ble CESTAT has passed the final order vide no. FO/75466-75472 dated 21.03.2018 where it is held as follows: "6. From the record, it also appears that the assessing officer has rejected the transaction value without any valid reasons and without new procedure as per Section 14 and valuation rules especially, there is nothing on record that the appellant has imported the secondary items but the value was considered for the fresh Items. No speaking order was passed for enhancement of value. There is nothing on record to suggest that the buyers and sellers of the goods are related persons. Therefore the enhancement of the value is likely to be struck down and rightly struck down by the Commr, (Appeals)." 7. Hence we do 'not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the same, is hereby upheld along with reasons mentioned therein. 21. I also observe that the lower authority stated at Para 5 that as per NIDB data 1341 cases of simil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the supplier of the goods. There is also nothing on record to suggest that the buyer and seller of the goods were related or price was not for the sole consideration for sale. Therefore, in these circumstances, the enhancement of assessable value is liable to be struck down and set aside and the bills of entry in the impugned appeal are to be assessed at value declared by the appellant. 23. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the enhancement of values done in this case is without having any sanction of law and is thus liable to be set aside outrightly. 24. In view of above, the enhancement of values in the present case is not sustainable in the eye of law and accordingly assessment of the impugned bills of entry is ordered at the values declared at invoice value. The appeal is accordingly liable to be allowed with consequential relief." 3. After going through at the submissions of the Ld. Respondent, we find that the Department has not made any attempt to follow the procedure given under the Valuation (Determination of Value of Importers Goods) Rules 2007 and has simply adopted the NIDB data and selectively enhanced value. As discussed above, ....