2020 (2) TMI 566 - CESTAT BANGALORE - Customs

Head Note / Extract:
Valuation of imported goods - PVC Laminated sheets (PVC floor covering) - rejection of declared value - value re-fixed under Rule 5 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - penalty on Customs Broker u/s 117 of CA - HELD THAT:- In the show-cause notice the Revenue has alleged that the supplier of the goods M/s. K.H.I. Vanich Group Co., Bangkok appears to be a trader and not the manufacturer. For this allegation, in the show-cause notice, Revenue has no basis because the appellant has given the invoices issued by the said supplier and has submitted in the reply to the show-cause notice that the said supplier is the biggest manufacture of the impugned goods in the world. Further, we find that the goods have been imported by the appellant under ASEAN Agreement between two Sovereign States and if the Department has any cogent evidence to come to the conclusion that no such manufacturer exist, then they should have made proper enquiry to blacklist such a supplier but the same has not been done at all. Commissioner on its own has come to the conclusion that the raw material for the impugned goods is LDPE and LLDPE and the value of raw material ranges from UDS 1180 to USD 1270 per metric tonne without any basis. He has observed in the impugned order that it is available in the Public Domain that LDPE and LLDPE are the raw material for the impugned goods. Further, even in the test report obtained by the Revenue from CIPET, Cochin, it is not mentioned that LDPE and LLDPE is the raw material for impugned goods. The information relied upon by the Commissioner available in the Public Domain is not admissible as evidence in law when there is a specific test report available of authorized agency. Further, the certificate issued by the manufacturer which is also on record, shows that LDPE and LLDPE is not the raw material for the impugned goods but the same has not been considered by the Commissioner. In the present case, the appellant has imported the material from Thailand whereas the Commissioner has relied upon the contemporaneous imports from China which cannot be considered as contemporaneous import at all. Further, the appellant himself earlier imported the same product and declared its value which was accepted and the goods were cleared from the same port. Instead of considering the same as contemporaneous import, the Commissioner has relied upon imports from China. The impugned orders re-fixing the price than the price declared by the importer is not sustainable in law - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.