TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant importer. Thus, there are not enough evidences for rejection of transaction value for the present imports. In this regard CESTAT Delhi in case of Commissioner of Customs v/s Modern Overseas [2005 (2) TMI 202 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] has held that the transaction value can be rejected on the basis of reasonable and cogent evidence of contemporaneous import of identical/similar goods. The comparable goods need to have same country of origin and has to be at same commercial level. The enhancement of the value which was done mainly based on NIDB data and Profoma Invoice of the Chinese manufacturer cannot be sustained - appeal allowed - decided against Revenue-respondent. - Appeal No. C/59973/2013] - Final Order No. 54964/2016 - D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the department without any justification and without ascertaining the nature, specification of the relied upon NIDB data as to whether department has relied upon the contemporaneous import of sodium saccharin of pharma grade (BP) as above or food grade viz a viz the declared value for sodium saccharin industrial grade. iii. Department in relying upon NIDB data also noticed import of industrial grade of sodium saccharin @Rs. 149/- and ₹ 122/- per kg whose purity of 95% minimum was found but they had not compared the specific value for similar goods but resorted to loading of the goods by taking the mean value i.e. @Rs. 263/- which was the lowest weakly average value of the goods at that period of time. iv. Department relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d industry. iii. In the instant case the goods have been imported from manufacturer based on transaction value and nothing extra was paid indirectly to the supplier except the transaction value of the goods. iv. As per rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules 2007 the value of the imported goods shall be accepted if the goods are not covered under the ambit of proviso to rule 3 (2) and rule 3 (3). In the instant case the buyer and sellers are not related and goods have been imported at arm s length on principal to principal basis. As per rule 11 (b) the goods were imported from manufacturer and agreement between supplier and appellant was furnished with the request that the transaction value should be accepted but the transaction v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transactions mentioned hereinabove i.e. 20000 kgs. Considering the higher quantity, lowest weekly average value, which, comes to ₹ 263/- per kg, was rightly proposed for assessment . Thus Revenue has rejected the transaction value under Rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of the Price of Imported Goods) Rules 2007 and re-determined the same in terms of Rule of 4 of the said Rules. 6. We find that the Revenue is trying to give justification for enhancing the value of the subject goods to ₹ 263/- per kg. However the Department s reasoning that NIDB data for comparable goods indicate that right value should be ₹ 263/- per kg does not stand to the judicial scrutiny. The Appellant has given the report from Assistant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o have further sold the same to M/s United Chemicals, Vijaywada, A.P. who have used it for industrial purpose. 6.2 Further, Transaction-value cannot be enhanced merely based on NIDB data and on the contents of a Proforma Invoice issued for the goods of Chinese origin, which is different from the origin of the subject goods, unless NIDB data is for contemporary imports of all comparable goods only. The Proforma Invoice of Chinese Company is also of not much significance as origin of present goods is Taiwan and not China. The revenue has also not given any evidence that there has been payment of extra money to the supplier to compensate for the alleged under-valuation by the appellant importer. Thus, there are not enough evidences for reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
