TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected in accordance of sub-rule (2) thereof. In the present case except for NIDB Data Department has no contemporaneous evidence to reflect the correct price. No doubt proviso (iii) to Section 14 of sub-section (1) provides a situation where the proper officer has a reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the transaction value and the bill of entry can be rejected. However, simultaneously, it is also provided that in case of doubt, the price shall be calculated with reference to the rate of exchange, as in force, on the date on which the bill of entry is presented under Section 46 - Apparently and admittedly, there is no such comparison on the part of the Department. The Dy. Commissioner, vide its order dated 1st May, 2017 himself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessed bill of entry on the sole ground that goods stand cleared at the enhanced value - Appellants are held entitled for the refund of the differential duty paid by them in accordance of the relevant rules in this regard. Appeal allowed. - Customs Appeal No. C/50714/2018-CU [DB] - Final Order No. 52326/2018 - Dated:- 28-6-2018 - HON BLE MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) And HON BLE MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Appellant : Ms.Priyanka Goel, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr Rakesh Kumar, D.R. ORDER PER: RACHNA GUPTA Present is an appeal filed being aggrieved of order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 31st October, 2017. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of present appeal are that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that NIDB Data alone is not sufficient for rejecting the bills of entry of the appellant. It is impressed upon that the Department itself has arrived upon the said conclusion vide order of Commissioner dated 1st August, 2016 where the Commissioner had observed that the assessment of bills of entry on enhanced assessable value has been done by the Customs without citing any reason and without giving the appellant the opportunity to present evidences in their support. It is on the basis of the said observation that the matter was remanded back and order under challenge culminated. The appellant while relying upon Section 14 of the Customs Act has submitted that while re-assessing the bills of entry, the Adjudicating Authority neither cited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f entry of the appellant. While justifying the order under challenge, it is submitted that remanding the matter will not adversely affect any of the parties irreparably. The appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 5. After hearing both the ld. Counsels, we are of the considered opinion that the bills of entry of the appellant, which initially were 320 in No. and later were reduced to 208 have been held by the Department to be under valued and differential duty has been demanded, which otherwise has been paid by the appellant. The reasons cited by the adjudicating authority for rejecting the declared transaction value is that the contemporaneous NIDB Data indicates import value, which are higher than the declared value. 6. The mute question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred but in the order itself it has been mentioned that the metal Bulletin was also not reflecting the exact prices. In some cases the prices reflected in Bulletin were less than the value at which bills of entry were assessed and in some cases the prices reflected in metal Bulletin were higher than the said value. In such circumstances, the reliance upon NIDB Data while rejecting the bills of entry of the appellant is observed as unreasonable. The law has been held by Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai 2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC) has held that the value according to Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 shall be taken to be the price at which such or other like goods are originally sold or offered for s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the goods by payment of duty on the enhanced value, inasmuch as the goods imported by them are required and cannot be allowed to be retained by the Customs as the same incurred demerits and other expenses. It is again a fact of common knowledge that settlement of dispute take years and the imported goods cannot be allowed to be deteriorated in quality till the final outcome of the dispute. Inasmuch as the goods imported by the appellant were required in assessees factory, the same were cleared by them on payment of duty on enhanced value and in the given circumstances, this fact by itself cannot be adopted as a ground for resolving the disputed issue of valuation. The fact that the assessment of bills of entries were challenged by the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
