TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in the case of S.K. Dhawan and Ors. [2016 (3) TMI 888 - CESTAT MUMBAI] has held that the methodology adopted by the adjudicating authority for redetermination of the value of the imported consignments is totally on presumption and surmises and is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/51938/2014-CU[DB] - A/61855/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 8-8-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri Prem Ranjan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri H. Singh, A.R. for the Respondent ORDER Per : Devender Singh The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order. 2 Brief facts of the case are that the appellant M/s Munjal Sanitations imported inn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the prices of the above importer even though supplier was the same in both the cases. He did not accept the prices in the Bill of Entry No.957782 mentioned above. Since he did not accept the prices of similar items imported by other importers from the same county, he was asked about the actual transaction price paid by him in respect of imports made by him in the above Bills of Entry as he had earlier in his statement dated 26.07.2010 admitted that the price declared by him in the Bills of Entry were even less than the Tariff Value of the Brass Scrap/ LME price of Zinc. He did not cooperate with the investigation to the extent that he did not provide any document/invoice to show the actual transaction price though, he reiterated that he was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rused the records. 6. We find that the sole basis of enhancement of value in this case is LME price of zinc, on which the Proprietor of importer was persuaded to pay the differential duty. No other evidence has been produced by the department. The department had asked the importer whether he conformed to the price of ball valves/check valves as available in proforma Invoice No.TSI-09-12-08 dt. 08.12.2009, which was not accepted by the importer. Hence, we find that the entire case of the department is on the basis of LME price of zinc. Further, we find that in a similar case, in which ball valves/check valves through JNPT, ICD, Mulund and where the value was also proposed to be loaded on the basis of LME prices, this Tribunal in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... flawed for more than one reason. 8.1 Firstly, we find that the methodology adopted by the adjudicating authority for redetermination of the value of the imported consignments is totally on presumption and surmises. The adjudicating authority has come to a conclusion that imported ball valves contained brass content of 76% and iron content of 24%, zinc content in zinc ball valves is of 65% and iron content is of 35%. In the entire case records we are unable to find anything which indicates that the content as recorded by the adjudicating authority is supported by any evidence. The adjudicating authority has relied on the statement given by S.K. Dhawan. In our considered view this finding of the adjudicating authority is not in consona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to a conclusion that there was undervaluation as the appellant-importer did not produce the manufacturer's invoice nor catalogue. In our view these findings of the adjudicating authority is totally not in consonance with the law, as these consignments were cleared by the same department when the bills of entries were filed and the documents as produced were accepted as correct at that time. If the authorities had entertained any doubt, they should have called for these documents at the time of clearance of the consignments. 8.4 Fourthly, we find that the adjudicating authority has recorded that the declared value were not actual transaction value paid or payable by the importer; are incorrect findings as they are not evidenced in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
