TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 327
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Entry dated 31.8.16 (2 cases) & 10.9.2017 (1 case), from China. It was felt by the Revenue that the value of imported goods was suppressed and required to be enhanced. The Department adopted the NIDB data to enhance the value and revised upwards the Customs Duty required to be paid. 2. Being aggrieved, the Respondent herein had filed an Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order held that the enhancement of value was not in accordance with law and allowed the appeal of the importer with consequential relief. In its appeal, the revenue has contended that while doing so the ld. Commissioner ignored the floor price fixed by way of a DRI alert and that the goods were also not accompanied by a manufacturer's invoice.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....009 (244) ELT 4 SC to the effect that transaction value cannot be rejected but for cogent reasons and hard evidence to establish and compare import of identical/similar goods at a higher price. In the case of Andhra Sugar Ltd v. CC Visakhapatnam [2006(193) ELT 68 (Tri-Bang)], it is held that there were similar import in the same shipment the transaction value cannot be rejected, but for by way of sufficient tangible evidence. Therefore, re-determination of value on the basis of the Chartered Engineer's Certificate does not sustain in law. 6. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the goods in question had been imported from an exporter in China who had raised his own Export Invoice. It is a settled position in law that the invoice ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the goods imported by M/s SKP Trade Link were identical to the goods imported by M/s Pioneer Impex. As such, the value, therein was enhanced in accordance with Rule 4 of CVR-2007. However, in the present appeal, Rule-4 was rejected by the lower authority as evident from the findings of the assessment order and the value was enhanced in accordance with Rule-5 of CVR-2007. In para 15 of the Order-in-Original-Cum-Finalisation of Provisional Assessments, the lower adjudicating authority has held as follows: "15. ....................................................................................................................Once transaction value is rejected Department has to go sequentially from Rule 4 to Rule 9 of Customs Valua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....going through each and every reasons adopted by the adjudicating authority for rejecting the transaction value, we find that the said reasons are nowhere relatable to value of goods. The imports made in the name of M/s S.B. International, and subsequent purchase of the goods on high sea sales basis from them have got no bearing on the value of the goods. The appellant have very clearly in their statement deposed that such course of action was taken by them to avoid sales tax, freight etc. Further, the import of the goods from the trader instead of manufacturer could not be adopted as a ground for rejection of the invoice value. Revenue has also nowhere shown that the goods known in the market as 'telescopic channels' but are shown a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the information (alleged computer printout) which formed the basis of the conclusion that the appellants herein under-valued the goods imported. In such a situation, the appellants obviously cannot and did not have any opportunity of establishing that the claim of the revenue is unsustainable in law. If the information which formed the basis for the Revenue to reject the appellant's valuation is supplied to the appellants, the appellants perhaps will have an opportunity to dispute the comparability of the import transactions allegedly contained in the computer printout on various counts may not be possible to catalogue. 23 The appellants, of course, admit that the goods imported by them are known commercially as 'Cyanuric....