9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1087X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It appears that the Department entertained a doubt as to the correctness of the declared value which were alleged to be not on par with the contemporaneous imports in other ports. This prompted the Revenue to indicate the same to the appellant, but however, the appellant vide their letter dated 23.12.2013 appears to have agreed to pay the duty under protest, in order to avoid detention and demurrage, thereby also seeking a speaking order. 3. The original authority, having considered the request of the appellant, adjudicated upon the issue and assessed the Bill-of-Entry, thereby re-valuing at an enhanced rate under Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the above enha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us submit, in the light of the above findings in the Order-in-Original, that the declared value has been rejected without there being any basis, but in a summary manner, which has been unfortunately upheld in the impugned order. 5.3 It is also his case that the original authority again misdirected himself in opting to go by Rule 7 ibid., for which no justifiable reasons have been given by the said authority. 5.4 In this context, he would rely on the following orders: - i. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. M/s. Sree Rajendra Textiles [Final Order Nos. 40631 to 40635 of 2023 dated 03.08.2023 in Customs Appeal Nos. 41810 to 41814 of 2013 - CESTAT, Chennai] ii. M/s. RJ Knitwears Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs [Final Order No. 40582 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red value of the disputed goods? 8. From a perusal of the Order-in-Original, the adjudicating authority had entertained a doubt insofar as the declared value of the goods in question is concerned. He has, at paragraph 3, highlighted that the declared value was compared with that of similar goods imported from the same country of origin, assessed at Chennai Sea and Nhava Sheva Ports. Against this, the appellant submits that no details about the alleged said contemporaneous imports were shared with the appellant, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Nothing is said about the commercial level and the quantity involved in those transactions to conclusively establish that the so-called contemporaneous imports were in fact of 'si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aration on parameters such as description, quality, quantity, country of origin, year of manufacture or production, non-declaration of parameters such as brand and grade and fraudulent or manipulated documents. In these appeals, the only reason for rejecting the transaction value is on account of noticing higher values of the contemporaneous imports. However, while determining a particular import to be considered as a contemporaneous import for enhancement, it is necessary to match all commercial level details like quality, quantity, type, whether under a contract, physical characteristics, brand, reputation, country of origin, time of import, stock lot sale, manufacturers sale, etc. This is a necessary requirement. Merely giving the detail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
