TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ascertained only by complying with the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. As the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has completely ignored the provisions of Customs Act and Valuation Rules, we are of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Customs Appeal No.70281 of 2013, 70400 of 2013 - FINAL ORDER NO.77041-77042/2019 - Dated:- 17-12-2019 - HON BLE SHRI S. K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON BLE SHRI BIJAY KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri A.K.Singh, Authorized Representative for the Appellant-Revenue Shri K.K.Sanyal, Consultant for the Respondent ORDER PER BIJAY KUMAR : Both the appeals arise out of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e No.SAL2012073 dated 30.07.2012 from Hong Kong and the Port of Loading was Shenzhen China. The consignment was taken for scrutiny by the Officer of Special Investigation Branch (SIB) regarding price declared by the importer. National Import Database (NIDB) was consulted for the contemporaneous import price, wherein it was found that the identical or similar goods were being cleared at the other Ports at value higher than the declared value by the Appellant. The Departmental Officers, after receiving a letter dated 27.09.2012 from one Shri Amar Mandelia, Proprietor of the Importing Firm, enhanced the value after taking concurrence for non-issuance of show-cause notice, personal hearing or assessment order, who requested for taking a lenient ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Tri.-Del.) ; (b) Venture Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC (Import General), New Delhi : 2016 (338) ELT 759 (Tri.-Del.) ; (c) Topsia Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC (Import-Seaport), Chennai : 2015 (330) ELT 799 (Tri.-Chennai). (iii) In the recent cases of Marvel Agencies Vs. Commr. of Customs, New Delhi : 2017 (348) ELT 534 (Tri.- Del.) and Aakash Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi : 2017 (358) ELT 987 (Tri.-Del.), similar view has been taken by this Tribunal. 3. The Ld.D.R. appearing on behalf of Revenue, submits that the impugned order is based in a very cryptic manner ignoring the provisions of Section 14 of the Act read with the Customs Valuation Rules. Therefore, the order needs to be set aside by allowing the Departmenta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
