9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellant's premises at Delhi and seized the unsold stock lying at their godown on the ground that there was a valuation dispute in respect of the goods imported under the 9 Bills of Entry. From the computer, a sheet containing FOB price in respect of local sale of imported goods was retrieved. It was alleged by DRI that the said FOB price was the actual transaction value. 3. On 19th October, 2012, the goods imported under Bill of Entry No. 8177874 were seized. A statement was recorded from Shri. Puneet Samalia, Partner of the Appellant Firm on 26.10.2012, wherein he stated that the actual value of the spare parts for tractor of SORL brand was the FOB price of the said goods shown in the list printed from his computer in his presence on 18.10.2012. Later, on 01.11.2012, Shri. Puneet Samalia retracted his statement and claimed that it was not given voluntarily. On 01.11. 2012, the appellant filed an application for provisional release of the seized goods imported vide Bill of Entry no. 8177874, dated 10.10.2012 and the goods were provisionally released to them on execution of Bank Guarantee of Rs.45 lacs and P D Bond for a sum of Rs.90 lacs. 4. A show cause notice dated 29.07.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orts available in NIDB data for re-determining the declared value. It is a settled proposition of law that the transaction value cannot be rejected only on the basis of the NIDB data because NIDB data do not show the import of comparable goods. They have cited several instances of import of goods at a lower value than the value declared by them, which were not considered by the adjudicating authority. The adjudication authority relied only upon the dossier given by the DRI and has abdicated his adjudicatory function. If NIDB data is to be relied upon, then it has to be continuous data and in the absence of continuity in data, selective data cannot be taken. (iii) There is no discussion in the impugned order on the parts which was sought to be compared and the part imported by the Appellant. Without discussion, the transaction value has been rejected and the value has been loaded on the basis of show cause notice without looking into their reply. (iv) The adjudicating authority has erred in holding that the goods imported in bulk could be treated as branded goods where only part No. and logo were mentioned for identification purpose. Such goods cannot be treated as branded merel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entry, we observe that there is no evidence available on record to establish that they were branded goods. The examination report or the assessing officer has not indicated that the goods were branded goods. Hence, the department cannot claim later that those goods cleared were branded goods without any corroborating evidence. The appellant stated that the mentioning of 'SORL' and part number on the gods would not make them as branded goods. The goods were sold in bulk without packaging. Part numbers and embossing of SORL were mentioned only for identification purposes. We observe that the adjudicating authority has not given any finding contrary to the claim made by the Appellant. 10. We observe that the adjudicating authority has adopted the value of comparable goods available in NIDB data to demand duty on the goods cleared under the 9 Bills of Entry. We agree with the contention of the Appellant that the transaction value cannot be rejected only on the basis of the NIDB data because NIDB data do not show the import of comparable goods. The Appellant stated that they have cited several instances of import of goods at a lower value than the value declared by them, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ' and the rest which were in bulk and without any packaging, but had embossing of SORL logo for identification, as unbranded goods. In respect of these goods also, the department has adopted comparable goods available in NIDB data and re-determined the assessable value. We observe that the appellant imported the goods in huge quantity on lot basis which are sought to be compared with imports of 100 pcs. made by Pratap Singh & Sons under Bill of Entry No.771158 dated 19.11.2009. This sort of comparison cannot be said to be contemporaneous when import by the appellant was in the month of December, 2009 and the quantity was hugely different. 14. We observe that the adjudicating authority has treated the sheet containing FOB price retrieved from Appellant's Delhi premises as price list and used the same for rejection of transaction value. However, this price has not been used for re-determining the assessable value. For the purpose of demanding duty, MRP is calculated on the basis of the import price of others by multiplying two and half times after providing abatement of 30%. The Appellant submitted that the business of Motor parts and Tractor parts in wholesale does not attr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered as value of similar goods. 17. The value available on NIDB data cannot be relied upon to reject the declared value. This view has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Agarwal Foundries (P) Ltd. reported in 2020(371)ELT.859(Tri-Hyd). The relevant part of the decision is reproduced below: "2. The appellant imported pig iron from various overseas traders for use in manufacture of billets. The declared value of pig iron varied from USD 229 per MT to USD 300 per MT. These values were rejected by the assessing officer who enhanced the value to USD 500 per MT based on the data available with the NIDB. NIDB is the data of the Customs Department which gives values of various commodities based on various transaction values of different goods. The question which falls for consideration is whether the invoice value can be rejected and the duty can be charged as per NIDB data without any specific evidence that the invoice values do not reflect actual transaction value. This issue was decided in respect of the same assessee vide Final Order No. A/30143- 30156/2018, dated 29-1-2018. It has been held that the NIDB data can be a guideline for the customs to arrive at the value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
