TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Customs Appeal Nos. 51414, 52809 and 52810 to 52864 of 2019 - Final Order No. 50769-50825/2020 - Dated:- 14-9-2020 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. C.J. MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Sunil Kumar, AR - for the appellant Shri Prem Ranjan Kumar, Advocate - for the respondent Customs Stay Application Nos. 50815, 51214, 51216, 51218, 51220, 51222, 51224, 51226, 51228, 51230, 51232, 51234, 51236, 51238, 51240, 51242, 51244, 51246, 51248, 51250, 51252, 51254, 51256, 51258, 51260, 51262, 51264, 51266, 51268, 51270, 51272, 51274, 51276, 51278, 51280, 51282, 51284, 51286, 51288, 51290, 51292, 51294, 51296, 51298, 51300, 51302, 51304, 51306, 51308, 51310, 51312, 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is no proper rejection of declared value as required under Rule 14 of Customs Act read with Rule 3 of Customs Valuation Rules. Further, the adjudicating authority have erred in not proceeding sequentially from Rule 4 to 9 of the Rules for revaluation of the goods. Further Rule 3(1) and (2) of Customs Valuation Rules 2012 provides that assessment has to be done on the transaction value, save an except for reasons to be recorded for rejection of the same. The importer also placed reliance on Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)/CUS/D-II/ICD/788-1083/2014 dated 31.12.2014 in their own case wherein they were challenging similar enhancement in respect of import of similar goods at ICD Patparganj and at ICD - TKD. By the said order in appeal the reasse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been enhancing or loading the declared value uniformly which is not correct. There is no comparison with contemporaneous imports like quality, level of import, time of actual import, etc. (v) Loading based on DRI Alerts and Circular of DGOV other Standing orders, is not in consonance with the provisions of the Customs Act and Rules. (vi) Reliance have been placed on the ruling of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. 2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC), where it has been laid down that unless the price actually paid for the particular transaction falls with the exception in Rule 4 (2), the Customs authority is bound to assess the duty on the transaction value. (vii) NIDB data cannot be the sole basis for enhancemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner (Appeals) have erred, as in case of three Bills of Entry the enhancement is different. Moreover, the enhancement of value was duly accepted by the importer waiving his right to show cause notice and opportunity of hearing. Although the import data of contemporaneous import have not been discussed in the assessment orders, but admittedly the same was shown to the importer who have accepted the same and referred to in their letter of acceptance. Further, learned Commissioner (Appeals) have erred to take cognizance of the written admission by the respondent importer before the assessing officer. Reliance is placed on the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Veera Ibrahim Vs. State of Maharashtra - 1983 (13) ELT 1590 (SC), wherein it wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Tri.-Del.); (iv) Surjeet Singh Chhabra Vs. Union of India 1997 (89) ELT 646 (SC). 6. Opposing the appeal learned Counsel for respondent Shri Prem Ranjan Kumar urges that the importer was under pressure to take the delivery of the goods to mitigate losses, including demurrage charges, etc. In case of prayer for provisional assessment, the adjudicating authority are reluctant to grant the same and it leads to delay in getting out of charge, resulting in demurrage charges. It is further urged that the loaded values as per NIDB data, are not the declared value, but the same are loaded value. Thus, the loaded value is not the proper value or the contemporaneous value for the purpose of assessment. Further, it is evident from the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
