TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not conclusively stated whether the samples of the goods were residue and why these were not Mixed Oil. In view of the above analysis, the charge of misdeclaration against the importers is not sustainable. Valuation - Held that: - there is no direct evidence indicating that the price reflected on the invoice is not the correct transaction value, we do not find any justifiable reasons to uphold the charge of the Revenue. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No.C/60461, 60463/2013-DB - Final Order No.62118-62119/2017 - Dated:- 5-12-2017 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri Tarun Kumar, AR for the Appellant- Revenue None for the Respondent ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue submits that the adjudicating authority did not verify the reasons for the ambiguous stand of experts and went by implied inferences. He explained the difference between the Mixed Fatty Acid and PFAD and stated that the appellants themselves admitted in their defence that their product Mixed Fatty Acid was obtained as a by-product from refining the crude palm oil and accordingly with reference to the range given in Bailey's Industrial Oil and Fat Products, the subject goods were PFAD. He also referred to the report from Malaysian Palm Board available on open source. Ld. AR further argued that though the product has been declared as Mixed Acid Oil, the CRCL Chemist and CRCL Joint Director have held that this product is not Acid O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anatory. However, on the basis of the test conducted none of the products under reference conforms to the specification of Acid Oil per the IS 12029 : 1986 nor it meets the requirements of any single vegetable oil, Vanaspati or fatty acid. Each is composed of vegetable oil/ vegetable oil with partial hydrogenation, free fatty acid and unsaponifiable matter. On the perusal of the literature and analytical reports, it appears that such products are generated as residues from the treatment of fatty substances or refining as indicated in the HSN 15.22 (B) We also find that from the above chemical test report, there was a cross-examination of the Chemical Examiner as well as the Joint Director. We find that the ld. Commissioner has correctl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xamination the CRCL examiner refused to classify the impugned goods under HSN/Customs Tariff, admitting that he had no expertise/jurisdiction to do that. 33. Thus, the DRI's suspicion that the impugned goods were stearin (Para 13 supra) was found to be incorrect. Similarly, the CRCL's clarificatory report that the impugned goods were perhaps residues of CH 15.22 turned out to be far from convincing following the answers given during their crossed examination by the two CRCL officers - one who had tested the samples (chemical examiner) and the other who had counter-signed the test reports (Jt. Director). They could/did not explain logically why in their view, the sampled goods were residue and why these were not mixed acid oil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on against the importers is not sustainable. 5. We also find that on the issue of undervaluation, in a similar consignment imported as Mixed Acid Oil by another importer M/s. H.K. International, which was investigated by the DRI. In the said case, this Tribunal examined 2011 (274) ELT 449 (Tri. Del.) the valuation aspect of that consignment in which the evidence consisted inter-alia the statements dt. 03.11.2006 of Shri Rakesh Kumar and statement dt. 06.11.2016 of Shri Anil Kumar Arora, both are indenter and broker, as in the present case. In the said case also the Revenue had relied upon the Export Price Bulletin prices issued by Malaysian Palm Acid Board, as in the present case. In those set of facts, the Tribunal has held that there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served that the London Metal Exchange Bulletin prices cannot be accepted as basis of valuation in the absence of corroborative evidence of contemporaneous imports. The said decision stands approved by the Hon ble Supreme Court, when the appeal filed by the Revenue thereagainst was rejected, as reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. A385. Similarly in the case of Pawan Goel v. CC, New Delhi reported in 2001 (135) E.L.T. 1425 (Tri.-Del.) , it was held that theoretical price based on LME bulletin cannot be made basis without corroborative evidence. We find that the legal position is well-settled and we do not find any need to multiply the precedent decisions. 10. Inasmuch as in the present case, there is no direct evidence indicating that the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
