TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1539
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....023 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals)rejected the appeal and upheld the assessment order dated 10.05.2022. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Sh. Manish Jain is Proprietor of M/s Regent Industries India imported wall paper falling under CTH 48149000vide two Bills of Entry No. 2231054 dated 04.01.2021 and No. 9999472 dated 17.12.2020, declaring a value of USD 2.2 per kg. The Faceless Assessment Group [FAG] enhanced this value to USD 3.5 per kg based on National Import Database [NIDB] data from Nhava Sheva Port. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Indore against the initial assessment and the non-issuance of a speaking order. Vide order IND-EXCUS-000-APP-006-007-2021-22 dated 31.5.2021 remanded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....@USD 2.2 per Kg. Hence, the enhancement of said goods from @2.2 per Kg to @3.5per kg was unlawful. 3.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in considering the NIDB Data of JNPT Port to assess the said goods @ USD 3.5 per Kg by Assistant Commissioner of Customs Mumbai. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vide impugned order had assessed said goods imported vide Bill of Entry no 2231054 dt.04.01.2021 @ USD 3.5 per Kg The said assessment had been done on the basis of NIDB Data of Nhava Sheva Port wherein identical goods imported vide Bill of Entry No. 2466837 dated 22.01.21 had been cleared and assessed @ USD 3.5 per Kg. He submitted that neither the copy of Bill of Entry No. 2466837 Dated 22....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epartment's primary contention, as implemented by the Faceless Assessment Group (FAG) and upheld by the Assistant Commissioner, was that the imported "wall paper" was undervalued. They had based this assessment on NIDB (National Import Database) data from Nhava Sheva Port, which indicated that identical goods were assessed at a higher value of USD 3.5 per kg, as opposed to the importer's declared value of USD 2.2 per kg. Learned Authorized Representative submitted that the department maintained that the said value viz., USD 3.5 per kg reflected the correct assessable value of the goods. This clearly implied that the transaction value declared by the importer was not acceptable under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, and thus requir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules 2007. It is pertinent to mention here that Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 empowers the proper customs officer to reject a declared transaction value and re-determine the value if there is reasonable doubt regarding the truth or accuracy of the declared value. In the instant case, the availability of higher import values of identical goods, as per NIDB was sufficient reason for the assessing officer to reject the value. We find that the AC proceeded to re-determine the value of impugned goods at @ US$ 3.5 per Kg as per provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act. 1962. It has been contended by the Ld Counsel th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame commercial level, same quantity, same country of origin as the goods was being valued. The details of the Bills of Entry which was relied upon are as under:- Sr. No. Bill of Entry and date Description Declared unit price in US$ Quantity in Kgs Assessable 1 2203827 dated 02.01.2021 Wall Paper 3.725416 20125 5811309.57 2 2322894 dated 12.01.2021 Wall Paper 6.328775 6083.8 2849222.10 3 2466837 dated 22.01.2021 Wall Paper 3.50 674.583 182646.88 8. We note that the Ld Counsel has submitted that the Department has not considered the value assessed in respect of contemporaneous Bill of Entry 9400767 dt 01.11.2020. In this context, we find that that impugned Bill of Entr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the goods may not be identical for its comparison with the goods so imported cannot be accepted. 10. Hence, we find no infirmity with respect to the impugned order upholding the enhancement issued by assessing officer. As regards the remand order of Commissioner (Appeals) to the assessing officer in respect of Bill of Entry No. 9999472 dated 17.12.2020, we do not find any infirmity in respect of this finding. Section 17 (5) of the Customs Act requires the customs officer to issue a speaking order. Despite the remand direction, it has been observed by the impugned order that speaking order has not been passed. The relevant portion of the findings in the impugned order as under:- "11. Further I also find that the Appellant in t....