TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uced several evidences by way of Bills of Entry with regard to the import of similar items which it appears to have been ignored by the lower authority. - The NIDB data which they have tried to compare cannot be compared at all because of the vast difference in commercial levels. – Departmental appeal rejected. - C/280/2008 - 87/2009 - Dated:- 23-12-2008 - S/Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) and M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) Ms. Sudha Koka, SDR, for the Appellant. Ms. Rukmani Menon, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)].- Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 145/2007, dated 29-11-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore. 2. We heard both the sid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Original authority and allowed the appeal of the Respondents and passed the impugned order. Revenue is aggrieved over the impugned order on the following grounds:- (i) The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in setting aside the value enhancement for the item Sl. No. 3 i.e., Plastic Zippers of size 30", on the ground that the comparison was done with reference to branded goods. The same is not acceptable for the reasons given below: The impugned goods Sl. No 3 i.e. Plastic Zippers of Size 30" were imported at a unit price of Rs. 1.40/PC and a quantity of 30,000 Pcs. from Republic of China. The adjudicating authority on due verification of contemporary imports of the similar goods from Republic of China, based on the NIDB data available wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants. The enhancement of value of Zipper Runners (Sl. Nos. 4 and 5 above), the "Commercial level" aspect has been taken into account while enhancing the same by making a 20% reduction on the NIDB values for the quantity aspect. The Zipper Runners (Sl. Nos. 4, and 5 above of 3" and 5" size, respectively, for item Sl. No. 4, the value declared was Rs. 0.13/Pc and contemporaneous import price was Rs. 1.48/Pc. For item Sl. No. 5 the value declared was Rs. 0.22/Pc and Contemporaneous import price was Rs. 2.95/Pc. With due consideration to quantity a discount of 20% was given and price fixed at Rs. 1.18/Pc and Rs. 2.36/Pc for Sl. No. 4 (#3) and Sl. No. 5 (#5) respectively, under Rule 6 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The same is in confo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. The Assistant Commissioner had accepted the evidences and arguments put-forth by the Respondent in respect of 26" and 28" Plastic Zipper imported by them. However in respect of the other three items, he has not accepted the explanation of the Respondents. It is for this reason, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner. (ii) The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside the order of the Original authority. The Department is totally ignoring the fact that the NIDB data for 30" Zipper was for 800 pieces whereas the quantity imported by the Respondent was 30,000 pieces. Therefore these cannot be compared. Moreover, 30" Zipper in NIDB data was of Ideal brand though it has been contended by the Depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. He has observed that the quantity imported by the Respondent was huge when compared to the few 1,000 pieces which is imported by the other importer NIDB and he also taken into consideration the other Bills of Entry where similar goods were cleared by other Customs House at more or less of the same declared value. (v) The Department has contended that the commercial level was taken into consideration while enhancing the value by giving 20% reduction on the NIDB values. It was argued that in the absence of any quantifiable data regarding identical goods, the data adopted by the Department is not acceptable. (vi) A condition for adjustment because of different commercial level and different quantities is that such adjustment, whether it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hile rejecting the NIDB data. 5. We have gone through the records of the case very carefully. The issue relates to the valuation of the items imported by the Respondent. For a proper understanding, the comparative chart mentioned in the impugned order is reproduced herein below:- Sl. No. Item Description Appellants Imports NIDB Imports Dept's final view Qty Remarks (Rs./Pc.) Price Qty Remarks Price (Rs.) 1. No. 5' 26" Plastic Zipper 30000 Unbranded 1.32 3020 Branded 38.32 Declared price accepted 2. No. 5'28" Plastic Zipper 40000 Unbranded 1.40 66 Branded 21.28 Declared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
