TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als) showed a much higher value of the import consignment than declared by the appellant. Since the declared value matches with the already accepted assessable value of the goods at different ICDs, only because two consignments of JNCH, Nhava Sheva were imported at higher prices, same cannot be taken as the contemporary import value of the imported items namely, bitumen 60/70 for rejection of the transaction value of the imported consignments when similar value of the identical goods have been accepted by the Department. Since declared value match with the lower accepted contemporary value, there is no ground for rejection of the same - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 52783/2019 Customs COD Appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the samples drawn from the imported consignments. 2. The samples sent for testing confirmed that the imported consignments were of bitumen 60/70. The original adjudicating authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner finalised the provisional assessment of the imported consignment accepting the assessment value of the imported consignment at USD 380 PMT vide following orders: S.No. 1 Appeal No. 2 Name of Appellant 3 Order-in-Review 4 Order in Original No. date 5 Adjudicating authority 6 1 Cus/JD/01/I/13 Deputy Commissioner of Customs, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue before him. In para 6 he recorded that the Department challenged the impugned order on the ground that the adjudicating authority did not give findings on the classification of the impugned goods and also wrongly accepted the lower value of the import. In para 7, he decided the classification. In para 8, he adopted contemporary evidence for enhancing the value. This clearly shows that the appellant is deprived of the process of natural justice. It would be proper for learned Commissioner (Appeals) to issue notice to appellant as to how he proposes to deal with the Revenue s appeal on both counts. Since he has not issued notice to the appellant, but adopted contemporaneous evidence and changed classification the appellant is entitled t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pted at USD 380 PMT. 6. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative who has generally supported the findings as given in the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 7. We find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has proceeded to decide the issue as per the directions of this Tribunal issuing a detailed show cause notice to the appellant. However, we find that the grounds of rejection of impugned value i.e. the transaction value have not been delivered in the show cause notice. Though, we find that the value given in two Bills of Entry which have been relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) showed a much higher value of the import consignment than declared by the appellant. However, the appellant since very beginning have been contes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 13.06.2012 (7098962) bitumen 60/70 101.42 380 MUNDRA 8 21.06.2012 (7172202) bitumen 60/70 101.43 380 ICD, Ludhiana 8. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not dealt with these imports in his Order-in-Appeal. We also find that the show cause notice dated 28.12.2018 issued in pursuance to this Tribunal s order dated 26.05.2014 does not even gave details as to why the transaction value declared by the appellant is not acceptable for the purpose of levy of Customs duty. The Customs Valuation Rules prescribe a specific dr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tical goods have been accepted by the Department. We also rely on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Paul Industries (India) vs. Union of India reported under 2004 (171) ELT 299 (SC), wherein it has been held that: 4. .In this regard, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has placed reliance upon Rule 5(3) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 which lays down that, in applying this rule, if more than one transaction value of identical goods is found, the lowest such value shall be used to determine the value of imported goods . It has been submitted that while passing the original order and fixing the duty, the Settlement Commission has not taken into consideration value of lowest transactio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
