TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1556
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....houry, Asst. Commissioner (AR) ORDER PER: P. A. AUGUSTIAN: The issue in the present appeal is regarding valuation of imported goods. 2. The brief facts are Appellant, M/s. Krishna Sales Corporation had imported Viscose Filament Yarn under 19(nineteen) Bills of Entry and Appellant, M/s. Soni Sales Corporation imported the very same goods under 9(nine) Bills of Entry. Alleging undervaluation, proceedings were initiated and statements were recorded from various persons including the Partner of the Appellant Shri. Gopal Soni. Thereafter alleging undervaluation, show cause notice dated 31.03.2016 was issued to M/s. Krishna Sales Corporation and thereafter the Adjudication authority as per the impugned order dated 29.03.202 confirmed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onfirmed the differential duty against 19 Bill of Entries and re-determined the value, differential duty with interest was confirmed with penalty and redemption fine. Aggrieved by said order, an appeal was filed before this Tribunal and this Tribunal as per the Final Order No. 2658426587/2013 dated 16.09.2013 remanded the matter to the original authority to re-examine as to whether the statement of co-noticee alone would be sufficient to require the Appellant to pay differential duty, etc. The Tribunal further held that the Adjudicating authority has not at all considered the other submissions and has given grounds for rejecting other submission except only relying upon the statement given by the Appellant and the fact that the Appellant ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or his phone number. With regard to the first 3 Statements of Shri Gopal Soni, no question being asked regarding modus operandi adopted in past imports is a serious lacuna. In view of specific findings by Hon'ble Tribunal in remand order, Ld. Commissioner could not have relied upon statement of Shri Gopal Soni. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that Adjudication Authority has not dealt with the contention of the Appellants to adopt contemporaneous import values. While remanding, this Tribunal held that the claim for adoption of contemporaneous prices has validity and if the price adopted by contemporaneous imports and the price at which the goods are sold in domestic market leave a reasonable margin, can one adopt ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....320 (Bom.) (ii) Swatch Group India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2023 (386) E.L.T. 356 (Del.)/ (2023) 10 Centax 5 (Del.) (iii) Junaid Kudia, M/s. Plastic Cottage Trading Co., Zaid Kudia Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vide Final Order No. A/86237-86239/2023 dated 25.08.2023 8. Learned Authorized Representative (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterated the finding in the impugned order and submits that during investigation, substantial evidence regarding undervaluation was recovered including Bank remittance papers, import documents and miscellaneous papers recovered from the premises and facts received from the overseas supplier on 16.07.2005 accepting payment through other mode. Thus, based on the substantive evid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....noticee from the same supplier". 9. Heard both sides and perused the records. 10. We find that the matter was considered by this Tribunal and while remanding the matter specific directions were issued as follows:- "7. Under these circumstances, we feel that the adjudicating authority needs to look at the issue afresh in the light of claims made by the appellants, decisions cited by them in support of their case, whether a statement alone would be sufficient to require the appellant to pay differential duty etc. We are constrained to do this in view of the fact that the Commissioner has not at all considered other submissions and discussed the same and has given grounds for rejecting such submissions excepting relying upon the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on rules, the lowest transaction value has to be adopted. The Ld. Commissioner has grossly erred in holding that Appellants had admitted higher value in the case of live consignments and that is best available value, which is contrary to Rule 5(3) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. However, we find that value prevailing in July 2007 cannot be adopted for the imports made from April 2004 as the value of the goods will vary over a period of time and particularly, when Appellants imported bulk quantity consignments. Further data related to contemporaneous import shows that others have imported less quantity of goods at comparable prices to the price declared by the Appellants and there is no reason to pay higher prices in free market to the sup....