Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 368 - AT - CustomsEnhancement of value - Enhanced only on the basis of NIDB data without rejecting the transaction value - Import of goods describing as Stainless Steel Coils Grade 201 “Ex Stock” but found of prime quality and weight was also found in excess - Held that:- there is neither any allegation nor any evidence on record to show that the value agreed upon between the importer and the exporter does not reflect the correct position. As the similar issues are considered in number of earlier decisions it is held that adoption of NIDB Data, without any other evidence on record to establish the transaction value is incorrect, and not proper and justified. Also revenue has not made any efforts to reject the transaction value. There is virtually no evidence on record to indicate that the value agreed upon between the importer and the exporter is not correct or any consideration of the goods has flown back to the exporter from the appellant. If that be so, the transaction value would reflect the correct assessable value of the imported items. Otherwise also, there is catena of decisions holding so. Therefore, the value cannot be enhanced. Imposition of penalty - Held that:- imposition of penalty of ₹ 25,000/- on the importing firm is not justified in as much as the Appellate Authority has himself arrived at a finding in favour of the assessee. Having held that there was no malafide on the part of the importer, it was not proper for the Appellate Authority to impose penalty on the firm. No tests have been carried out, no experts opinion obtained and as such it is difficult to accept the Revenue's proposal that the goods were not of the Grade declared by the assessee and were of higher Grade. However, apart from observing that there was no willful mis-declaration by the importer so as to avoid incidence of a higher duty, department has also observed that even a small percentage of the excess goods covered by one of bills of entries was also not at the instance of the importer. However, in spite of that department has imposed penalty on the importer. Therefore, the said part of the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) is self-contradictory, thus not calling for imposition of any penalty on the importer. - Decidde in favour of appellant with consequential relief
|