Case Law Details
Karan International Vs Commissioner of Customs (Port) Kolkata (CESTAT Kolkata)
CESTAT Kolkata held that NIDB data cannot be relied upon when it is relating to different quantity and quality of goods. Further, enhancement of value based on LME prices untenable in view of unambiguous certificates from the manufacturers of the impugned goods.
Facts- The Commissioner vide impugned orders has enhanced the value of the imported goods i.e. “Enamelled Aluminum Wire” of various imported vide Bill of Entry Nos.436074 dated 13.10.2008 and 441097 dated 10.11.2008 weighing of 14859.42 kgs and 14550 kgs. of the same respectively consigned from China. The Commissioner while rejecting the transaction value declared in terms of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, has re-determined the assessable value thereof under Rule 5 read with Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 demanding payment of differential duty, confiscating the said goods under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, releasing them on redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also imposing a penalty on the importer under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
The Importers have contested that re-determination of the transaction value based on the LME price has resulted in excess payment of duty as was paid by them at the time of the provisional release of the goods.
Conclusion- This Tribunal in the case of B.B.M.Impex Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi reported in 2021 (376) ELT 743 (Tri.-Del.) has held that NIDB Data cannot be relied upon when it is relating to different quantity and quality of goods. The test report and the manufacturer’s certificates have not been contested by the Department. The contemporaneous evidence cited in support by the Department, are not inconsonance with the description of the goods under import. Obviously, proforma invoice can form no sustainable basis for enhancement of value and furthermore, in the present case, the description of the goods thereof also does not tally. The enhancement of value based on computation by the ld.Commissioner based on the LME prices, is also not tenable in view of the unambiguous Certificates from the manufacturers of the impugned goods, tendered by the appellants.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
