TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Moreover, the declared vague is found less than the assessed value which cannot be the basis to enhance the value. In this case, the department has assessed identical goods at the rate of 2.85 US$ per kg whereas the value declared by the appellant ranges between 2.00 US$ to 2.63 US$ per kg. The price which has been adopted to be assessed is not the declared vague. In fact, the same is the assessed value. Therefore, the said value cannot be said as the value of contemporaneous import. The value of imported goods cannot be enhanced on the basis of DRI alert and the basis of assessed bill of entry - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/53796 to 53801/2014Cus(DB), C/53810 to 53819/2014, and C/53795,53809/2014 - ORDER NO. 61 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of the imported goods cannot be enhanced without rejecting the same, moreover, reliance placed on the assessed bill of entry is not correct in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ravi Dyeware Co.Ltd. - 2014 (301) 421) and in the case of Samar Polytex Ld.-2009 (238) ELT 621 (Trio-Del.). 4. It is further submitted that in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) have relied on the assessed bill of entry which have mostly set aside by this Tribunal on the ground that no speaking order has been passed by the adjudicating authority under section 17 (5) to reject the declared value. Moreover, no other evidence has been produced on record on account of contemporaneous import of similar goods. Therefore, the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said value cannot be cannot be said as the value of contemporaneous import. Similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Ravi Dyeware Co. Ltd. (supra) wherein this Tribunal has observed as under: 5.1 The enhancement of the value has been done under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. As per the said Rule, if more than one value is found, then the lowest of the such value shall be used to determine the value of the imported goods. In the present case as pointed out by the Id. Counsel, the department has assessed identical goods at lower values ranging from US $ 1070 to US $ 1090 PMT, whereas the value declared by the appellant is higher at US $ 1100 PMT. Further, the price adopted for comparison is not a declared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e price enhanced by the Department which has been reportedly accepted. Such an enhanced price can not be treated as transaction value of similar goods sought to be compared. We have not been shown any evidence of actual higher import price of similar goods which can be adopted for the present import. In view of the above, the orders of the Commissioner enhancing the assessable value cannot be sustained . 11. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the value of the imported goods cannot be enhanced on the basis of value of assessed value of bill of entry. 12. Further, we take note of the fact that similar goods have been imported by the other importers in whose case the value was enhanced by adopting the contemporaneous import o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
