Panchagni Energies Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.-Mundra (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that enhancement of value unsustainable as approximately same price for various other consignments imported at same time and have same quantity were accepted by the department.
Facts- In the instant case importers had imported product described as Ordinary PU belts. The same was declared as invoiced at Rs. 7.48/- per piece. The department placing reliance on NIDB data sought to raise the price to Rs.18.58/-. Further department has also sought to rely on a DGOV Circular F. No. Val/Tech/25/2013 dated 07.08.2013, which suspected under valuation in import of PU belts on trans India basis and indicated a price range of 18.58 to Rs. 22.50/-. Seizure of consignment covered by bill of entry dated 05.02.2015, was also done on 23.02.2015. Department had also done market survey to indicate that similar goods were having market value of Rs. 140 to 180 per piece.
The transaction value was rejected by proceeding sequentially under Customs Valuation Rules and the value was determined as per best judgment assessment under Rule 9 adopting the value of similar goods imported within reasonable period of time. Bills of entry was rejected under Rule 12 for Violation Rules read with Section 14 of the Act, and the goods were assessed under Rules 9 as per the contemporaneous import of similar goods.
The department therefore imposed RF and sought differential duty as well as imposed penalty u/s. 114A from the appellant. Aggrieved by the order of lower authorities appellants have filed the present appeal.
Conclusion- We find that in the matter of M/s. Sumit Enterprises, M/s. Liberty Enterprises the period involved was contemporaneous and import was also of PU belts and the quantity was also of the same extent as in the instant case. It was held that on the same or approximately same price, various consignments were imported which have been accepted by the department. Copies of some of Bills of Entry submitted by the appellants which are placed in the appeal records. Even if price of contemporaneous import to be adopted, as per the above datas, no enhancement can be made.
Held that we have no hesitation in following the above relevant decision of the same Bench (different constitution), which pertains to same product description, is of almost same quantity and of the same price range and of the same period to hold that the decision which were announced in the similar circumstances will substantively apply in the present matter also.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
In the instant case importers had imported product described as Ordinary PU belts. The same was declared as invoiced at Rs. 7.48/- per piece. The department placing reliance on NIDB data sought to raise the price to Rs.18.58/-. Further department has also sought to rely on a DGOV Circular F. No. Val/Tech/25/2013 dated 07.08.2013, which suspected under valuation in import of PU belts on trans India basis and indicated a price range of 18.58 to Rs. 22.50/-. Seizure of consignment covered by bill of entry dated 05.02.2015, was also done on 23.02.2015. Department had also done market survey to indicate that similar goods were having market value of Rs. 140 to 180 per piece. The transaction value was rejected by proceeding sequentially under Customs Valuation Rules and the value was determined as per best judgment assessment under Rule 9 adopting the value of similar goods imported within reasonable period of time. Bills of entry was rejected under Rule 12 for Violation Rules read with Section 14 of the Act, and the goods were assessed under Rules 9 as per the contemporaneous import of similar goods. The department therefore imposed RF and sought differential duty as well as imposed penalty under Section 114A from the appellant. Aggrieved by the order of lower authorities appellants have filed the present appeal.
2. Learned Advocate for the party relied upon the following propositions:
