TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1232
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ness were found. Besides, 760 meters of extra fabric was also recovered. Representative samples were drawn and tested by CRCL, wherein the thickness, GSM and percentage of fabric was reported. Further, it was reported that, the samples are in cut piece of white/yard, knitted/woven fabric of polyester coated on one side with polyurethane and coating is visible with naked eye. The goods were seized under section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 on 09.11.2023. 2.1. In the process of investigation, statement of Shri Shiv Kumar Agarwal, representative of the appellant firm, was recorded. The appellant waived issuance of Show cause notice and dispensed Personal hearing since, live consignment was under detention. Finally, the case was adjudicated and Order-In-Original No. KOL/ CUS/ ADC/ PORT/ GR.3/ 140/2023 dated: 27.12.2023, was passed. 2.2. In the order, the allegation of mis-match and mis-declaration of the goods was upheld. The value was directed for enhancement under Rule 9 as per the internal instruction of SIB, vide F. No. CUS/SIIB/MISC/938/2023-GR 3-O/O PR COMMRCUS-PORT-KOLKATA, wherein price of different coated fabric was decided. The goods were initially claimed classifica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... value cannot be enhanced on the basis of a Circular or instructions, which is not in consonance with Valuation Rule, 2007. 3.2. In the case of CC vs Bharti Rubber Lining and Allied Services Pvt Ltd -2013 (287) ELT 124 (Tri Mum), it was held that the DGOV circular cannot override the provisions of Valuation Rules. Hence, the value enhancement done on the basis of a Circular/Instruction is bad in law and legally not sustainable. 3.3. Further, the Appellant submits that similar goods are being cleared at a much lower value vide Bills of Entry Nos. 1009234 dated 26.05.2023, 1007451 dated 03.05.2023, 1004800 dated 22.03.2023 and 1008819 dated 22.05.2023, copies of which are annexed to the appeal memorandum. But, Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in para-8 of his order, on the basis of the finding in para-13.8 of the lower authority held that, "reasons being no import data/identical goods of same thickness, patter in comparable commercial quantity was available, rightly the valuation was done under Rule 9 of CVR, 2007",. 3.4. Further, in respect of the evidence submitted before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), it was observed in para-9 of the order that, "since the appellant failed to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....done on the basis of an instruction issued by the department in F. No. CUS/SIIB/MISC/938/2023-GR 3-O/O PR COMMRCUS-PORT-KOLKATA. We find that basis of the valuation made in the order is legally not permissible. We observe that the Valuation Rule of Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 does not validate such arbitrary value enhancement. Moreover, the issue stands settled that value cannot be enhanced on the basis of a Circular or internal instructions issued by the department, which is not in consonance with Valuation Rules, 2007. 6.2. As per the Valuation Rules, re-determination of value can be done on the basis of the value of contemporary imports of similar goods. In this regard, we find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to recognize the evidence of contemporary imports submitted by the Appellant vide Bills of Entry Nos. 1009234 dated 26.05.2023, 1007451 dated 03.05.2023, 1004800 dated: 22.03.2023 and 1008819 dated 22.05.2023. We find that the lower authorities have ignored the evidence of contemporary import submitted by the Appellant and re-determined the value arbitrarily, based on the highest possible value available, whereas the guidelines on valuation suggest adaptat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss as per evidence Unit price assessed Duty Differential duty 1 0.72mm 1.79 3062361 0.70mm 0.80 2113791 948570 2 0.39mm 1.28 739475 0.40mm 0.78 601827 137648 3. 0.42mm 1.28 173508 0.40mm 0.78 141211 32297 4. 0.62mm 1.53 600580 0.60mm 0.80 491276 109304 5. 0.72mm 1.79 324423 0.70mm 0.80 223932 100491 6. 0.68mm 1.79 761904 0.70mm 0.80 525903 236001 7. 0.71mm 1.79 162212 0.70mm 0.80 111967 50245 8. 0.7mm 1.79 265437 0.70mm 0.80 183217 82220 Total 6089902 1696776 4393126 6.5. The Appellant submitted that if the value is enhanced as per the lowest available value of the contemporary imports, the differential duty of Rs. 51,94,127/- worked out by the lower authorities would be reduced to Rs.35,02,980/- (ie Rs. 43,95,126 - Rs. 8,92,146 (duty paid) = Rs.35,02,980/). This calculation needs to be verified by the Assessing officer and the value is to be redetermined. We observe that the redemption fine is liable to be imposed on the....