AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 138
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s enclosed with each of the above referred bill of entry. The goods were assessed in the Assessing group on the basis of the invoice submitted by the importer and the declaration made in the Bill of Entry after enhancing values of the two items out of five items in the Bill of Entry. Further investigation was proceeded by the SIB (Port) and on examination of the goods in Dock, it was alleged that the goods were grossly mis-declared in terms of description and value and representative samples were drawn for further investigation. After examination and scrutiny of the goods, it was presumed that the importer has mis-declared the description of the goods specifically the membrane of RO filter. After examination of the goods by the SIB officers, the importer vide their letter dated: 10.01.2013 & 15.01.2013 agreed for enhancement of value as per DOV data because of huge mounting rent of CFS and container detention charges and also sought waiver of issuance of Show cause notice, personal hearing and Adjudication order in this regard. 2. In the course of investigation, it was alleged that the address provided by the appellant was found to be fake and no such firm with the name M/s Eagl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne of Rs.12,00,000/- u/s 125 of the CA'62. Further Penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- u/s 112(a)(ii) was also imposed on the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant makes the following submissions: 3.1 The main allegation held in the order that, the goods were mis-declared both in description and value, as per the chart below; No. Description declared Value declared (Rs.) Description found Value ascertained as per the NIDB Date(Rs.) 1. Housing Slim white (Water purifies spare parts 16.71 Housing Slim white (Water purifies spare parts) 20.41 2. Spun filter parts-1 (Water purifier spare parts) 22.28 Spun filter Cartridge 10'Long (Water purifier spare parts) 40.56 3. Carbon Filter (Water Purifier Spare parts) 22.28 Carbon Filter Cartridge (K33C/T33C) (Water purifier spare parts) 33.22 4. Parts DCC-002 (Water purifier spare parts) 11.14 Vontron membrane (Reverse osmosis element) Model no. UPL 1812-80 358.05 5. Water filter parts SV-01 (Water purifier spare parts 11.14 Water filters parts. Solenoid valve for R.O. water purifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....raised by the assessing group. 3.7 The appellant is a regular importer of the goods and the supplier to keep up his business avenue may consider reduction in price for sale of his goods which is a normal trade practice. In the case of Pioma Industries- 2008(230) ELT 494, it was held that it is a common practice in business circle to offer lower prices to the buyers, who repeatedly buy the goods from the same supplier. On the face of the discount given by the supplier, the rejection of the transaction value is not justified. Further in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Export), Mumbai vs Radhey Shyam Ratan Lal -2006 (202) ELT 500 (Tri-Mumbai), the Hon'ble Tribunal held that Transaction value declared held to be genuine value and no other consideration either direct or indirect received by supplier - Only when transaction value under Rule 4 of Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988 is rejected, recourse can be made to Rules 5 to 8 ibid. 3.8 Further in this context it is submitted that at the material time similar goods were being cleared through other ports vide Bill of Entry No. 8151343 dated: 10.08.2012 and through Kolkata port against Bill of Entry No. 7964936 dated: 09.12.2012 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, it was found that even for the earlier consignments imported by the appellant, the value of similar goods were at higher side. Therefore, the NIDB data for the nearest time of import was obtained and the same was applied to arrive at the correct Assessable Value. He justifies the impugned order. 6. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal papers and submissions and documentary evidence placed before us. 7. We find that the first issue about the non-existence or otherwise of the appellant as an importer is not an issue raised at the earlier stages. The appellants are operating under the IEC code issued to them. Their appeal at the HC was taken by the High Court and their address details were not doubted at any stage. Therefore we are not dwelling on this issue any further. The main issue is that of value to be adopted for the imported consignment. 8. In the case of the present issue on hand, the imported goods were assessed by the Customs officials and is not a case of self-assessment. After the assessment, enhancement of value was ordered in respect of some goods, for which the appellant has given their consent. Only much later the so-called investigation has come up....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y because there is admission by the importer does not absolve the department to act in compliance of the mandatory provisions. Recording the basis for such an enhancement is the sine-quo-non of re-determination. From the perusal of the records of the case, we do not find that the department has made any effort to ascertain quality, quantity, characteristics of the goods of contemporaneous import from which the basis for such reassessment can be made out. In fact, there is no evidence at all to show that the department had carried out any exercise for ascertaining the basis for re-determining the value of the imported goods. It is not even forthcoming that the overseas supplier has been paid consideration higher than the amount declared in the invoices. In the present case, the revenue has merely re-assessed the value on the basis of the statement of Shri Jhunjhunwala, which is not the prescribed requirement for reassessment of the value of the imported goods. The revenue has not discharged its burden and therefore, we conclude that the transaction value declared by the importer should form the basis of assessment and consequently, the enhanced value reassessed by the revenue is uns....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had tried to impress upon the Assistant Commissioner by furnishing imports of similar goods by various other importers, the value of which almost matched with that of the appellant before us, but however the same has not at all been considered by the said authority. 7.1 It is the settled position of law that NIDB data cannot be the only basis for rejection of the declared value, which has been reiterated by various CESTAT Benches, including the Chennai Bench, in the case of M/s. Almaa Traders v. Commissioner of Customs (Export), Chennai [Final Order No. 40898 of 2023, dated 11-10-2023 in Customs Appeal No. 40935 of 2014 - CESTAT, Chennai] [(2024) 16 Centax 282 (Tri. - Chennai)], wherein it was held as under :- "7.3. Moreover, the officer has relied on alleged contemporaneous imports which were never put across to the appellant for rebuttal, but however, that such reliance on the contemporaneous imports itself has been doubted by the adjudicating authority when he holds that the value of the imported goods could not be determined under Rule 4 and Rule 5 due to variable factors like numerable types of descriptions, grades, country of origin, etc.; Rules 7 and 8 also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed as per NIDB data without any specific evidence that the invoice values do not reflect actual transaction value. This issue was decided in respect of the same assessee vide Final Order No. A/30143-30156/2018, dated 29-1-2018. It has been held that the NIDB data can be a guideline for the customs to arrive at the value of the goods but the NIDB data cannot be applied directly unless the value given therein falls within the parameters of identical goods or similar goods. Relying on the decisions in the cases of Topsia Estates Pvt Ltd v. CC (Import-Seaport) Chennai [2015 (330) E.L.T. 799 (Tri. - Chennai)], CC New Delhi v. Nath International [2013 (289) E.L.T. 305 (Tri. - Del.), Impex Steel & Bearing Co. v. CC Delhi-IV [2014 (302) E.L.T. 464 (Tri. - Del.)] and Eicher Tractors Ltd v. CC Mumbai [2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)] it has been decided that the department cannot reject the declared value and assess the goods as per the NIDB data. 3. We find that the issue in the present three appeals is identical to the aforesaid decision of this Bench and we find no reason to deviate from the same. Accordingly we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals of the appellant. A....