TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t been done at all. Commissioner on its own has come to the conclusion that the raw material for the impugned goods is LDPE and LLDPE and the value of raw material ranges from UDS 1180 to USD 1270 per metric tonne without any basis. He has observed in the impugned order that it is available in the Public Domain that LDPE and LLDPE are the raw material for the impugned goods. Further, even in the test report obtained by the Revenue from CIPET, Cochin, it is not mentioned that LDPE and LLDPE is the raw material for impugned goods. The information relied upon by the Commissioner available in the Public Domain is not admissible as evidence in law when there is a specific test report available of authorized agency. Further, the certificate issued by the manufacturer which is also on record, shows that LDPE and LLDPE is not the raw material for the impugned goods but the same has not been considered by the Commissioner. In the present case, the appellant has imported the material from Thailand whereas the Commissioner has relied upon the contemporaneous imports from China which cannot be considered as contemporaneous import at all. Further, the appellant himself earlier imported th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds were imported from Thailand. The importer/Customs Broker failed to declare the complete required declaration including percentage of PVC content to ascertain the value and to compare with the contemporary import price. On scrutiny, of the documents, it is found that the supplier is M/s. K.H.I. Vanich Group Co., Bangkok, appears to be a trader and not the manufacturer of the goods. The above said self-assessed Bill of Entry was processed under RMS and the said Bills of Entry selected for both assessment and examination. At the time of assessment it was noticed that the declared value appears to be low when compared to the contemporary import value of similar/identical goods, and therefore, importer/Customs Broker were issued with an on-line query to produce documentary evidence to confirm the value as per Rule 12 of the Valuation Rules. The importer / Customs Broker did not produce any documents and requested to given first check examination. Accordingly, first check examination has been given for the Bill of Entry and ordered to draw samples for testing and confirming the PVC content and the samples were tested at CIPET and the CIPET vide their report No.18146 dated 2.8.2018 rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... false allegation against the appellant. The learned counsel also submitted that the other reason to reject the transaction value is that raw material for the product is Low-density Polyethylene (LDPE), Linear Low-density Polyethylene (LLDPE), etc., and the value of raw material ranges to USD 1180 to USD 1270 per Metric Tonne. Learned counsel submitted that this finding of the Commissioner in the impugned order is without any basis. Further, the report of the Central Institute of Plastic Engineering and Technology (CIPET), Cochin vide its Test Report No.18146 dated 2.8.2018 observed that PVC content is said to be 51%. However, the report does not say that the raw material of the impugned goods is LDPE or LLDPE. Learned counsel also submitted that the copy of the Test Report as relied upon in the show-cause notice has not been furnished to the appellants. Further, he submitted that the Commissioner in order to justify this finding has come to the conclusion that material available in the Public Domain says that raw material of the impugned goods is HDPE and LLDPE, etc., but the said material is not admissible as evidence. He further submitted that the details of contemporaneous impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rld. Further, we find that the goods have been imported by the appellant under ASEAN Agreement between two Sovereign States and if the Department has any cogent evidence to come to the conclusion that no such manufacturer exist, then they should have made proper enquiry to blacklist such a supplier but the same has not been done at all. Further, we find that the Commissioner on its own has come to the conclusion that the raw material for the impugned goods is LDPE and LLDPE and the value of raw material ranges from UDS 1180 to USD 1270 per metric tonne without any basis. He has observed in the impugned order that it is available in the Public Domain that LDPE and LLDPE are the raw material for the impugned goods. Further, we find that even in the test report obtained by the Revenue from CIPET, Cochin, it is not mentioned that LDPE and LLDPE is the raw material for impugned goods. The information relied upon by the Commissioner available in the Public Domain is not admissible as evidence in law when there is a specific test report available of authorized agency. Further, the certificate issued by the manufacturer which is also on record, shows that LDPE and LLDPE is not the raw mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
