TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue 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 asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Coils Grade 201 Ex Stock imported from China. Alongwith the said bills of entries, the appellants filed all the requisite documents in the shape of Exporter Invoice, Packing List, and Country of Origin Certificate as also Bill of Lading etc. The said goods were examined, at the time of clearance and the appraisal entertained a view that the goods were of prime quality and not of 201 Ex Stock . It was also noticed that in respect of one of bills of entries, the weight was in excess to the tune of 779 kgs. over the declared weight. 2. On the above basis, proceedings were initiated against the appellant by the way of issue of show cause notice for enhancement of the value of the imported goods, on the basis of the NIDB Data as also on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso the difference in weight is small as compared to the total weight of the impugned goods, the gravity of main allegation of mis-declaration is much less. Further more, the involvement of the Director has not been brought out and his involvement is being presumed. By observing so, he reduced the penalty to ₹ 25,000/- on the firm and ₹ 5,000/- on the Director. 4. As regards valuation, he observed as under :- 13. The appellant has contested the enhancement of value on the basis of NIDB data on the ground that there is no comparison of quantum of import, quality of goods, relation between the buyer and the seller etc. But the appellant ha snot brought out any evidence to show that there was any other date of import of sim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or of the firm has not filed a separate appeal. 6. Countering the above arguments, learned DR appearing for the Revenue submits that the goods were found to be of prime quality by the examiner, at the time of examination of the goods and said fact, by itself, is indicative that the value of the imported goods should have been on the higher side. In these circumstances the adoption of NIDB data, which is nothing but compilation of the correct value of identical goods is appropriate. As such, he prays for upholding the impugned orders. 7. Having appreciated the submissions made by both the sides and having gone through the impugned order, we find that the findings of the lower Authorities that the goods were of prime quality instead of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 95 (Tri. Del.) as also in the case of CC, New Delhi vs. Marble Art reported in 2013 (289) E.L.T. 346 (Tri. Del.) has held that for adopting any other method for enhancement of the value of the imported goods, first of all transaction value is required to be rejected as incorrect/false on the basis of some evidences. It is only thereafter that the other method of deciding value has to be adopted. In any case, the Tribunal has observed that NIDB data cannot be held to be the proper basis for enhancement of the value. When we apply the ratio of the above decisions to the facts of the present case, we find that Revenue has not made any efforts to reject the transaction value. There is virtually no evidence on record to indicate that the va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
