TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 652X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Representative Sealed Samples from each container of various sizes, along with the stickers pasted were drawn. The goods were found to be Mix lot of different sizes, colours, it may be considered as stock lot of goods. The goods were found to be neatly packed in the form of rolls having stickers pasted showing details of dimensions, specifications, weight etc. No indications of rejected in nature was evident, as declared by importers. The declared value of US$ 480 per Ton was found very low when compared with the average international prices of raw material, used in manufacturing of such goods viz. PVC. The international price of Chinese origin raw material was ranging from US$ 1000 to US$ 1145 PMT during past 4 months. 3. Statements of the Proprietor were recorded and the Proprietor, inter alia, stated that the goods were purchased as stock lot on as is where is basis, and were purchased from different Warehouses at different locations in China. The lots were having different sizes and different types of thickness, which is evident from the examination conducted by the Customs authorities. Samples were also sent to the concerned Geo-Syndicate, IIT, Powai. Ultimately, a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wal also accepted that the Department does not dispute that the goods are stock lot of goods. The ld. Counsel further drew our attention to the fact that international prices of Chinese origin raw material, which were fluctuating prices, was sought to be used to enhance the declared value, though it was not comparable by any stretch of imagination. The show cause notice clearly accepted the position that as imported lot is having mixed sizes, data of identical goods are not readily co-relatable, Rules 4 and 5 of Valuation Rules cannot be adopted. The notice also admits that NIDB data provides a substantially reasonable basis for comparison for import of similar goods, which is more indicative in nature, and the foolproof comparison is not feasible. No ready independent data of the sale price of these imported goods in local market is available to rely on. The show cause notice, therefore, incorrectly jumped to Rule 8 to re-determine the value. The ld. advocate stated that when these facts were pointed out to the adjudicating authority and the data was produced before him, he was duty bound to consider and give reasons on the crucial data submitted by the importer to support the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... caused great financial losses to the Appellant. 7. The ld. SDR, on the other hand, stated that the adjudicating authority had passed the order showing valid reasons. He produced before us a decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court, in Ramchandra Art Silk Yarn v. UOI, reported in 2002 (139) E.L.T. 540 (Guj.) and the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Varsha Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI reported in 2009 (235) E.L.T. 193 (S.C.), and stated that PLATT prices could be used as a basis for loading the declared value in the present case. He stated that the Appellant did not give to the proper officer the details, which were necessary to arrive at and determine the assessable value, and hence the Department was left with no other choice but to load the declared value, which was only due to the non-co-operation of the Appellant. He stated that the adjudication order correctly determines the assessable value and the redemption fine and penalty imposed were extremely reasonable and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. We have considered carefully the submissions advanced from both sides and have perused the records. On a careful reading of the adjudication order, it clearly appears ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tails of the Bills of Entry in the chart produced before him nor has given serious consideration to the Chennai Custom House assessment proceedings in the Appellant s own case. This shows a highly casual approach to serious adjudication proceedings, which have financial implications. No reasons are forthcoming as to how and on what basis the amount of redemption fine has been imposed and thus the mandate of Section 125 of the Customs Act and the spirit and intention of the concept of margin of profit appears to have been ignored by the Commissioner. No reasons are present to indicate as to why penalty also has been imposed on the Appellant. It was the consistent stand of the Appellant that the goods in the instant case are stock lot of unsold, rejected and left-over material accumulated over a period of time. The present lot was initially manufactured by the manufacturer for some U.S. company, which was rejected by the said buyer and was later offered to the Appellant at the unit price of US$ 480 PMT (C F) in a stock clearance exercise on as is where is basis , without any guarantee for the quality of the goods. The question, therefore, is that if the Department is accepting that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
