2005 (98) ECC 33 (Tri)

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

West Regional Bench -- Mumbai

Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Shri V.K. Agarwal, Member (T)

Neptune Steel Processors

Versus

Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva

Appeal No. C/1208/99/Mum

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 673/99 AP VL (JCH) dated 7.10.99 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Airport, Mumbai]

Order No. A/990/WZB/2004-C-II, dt. 2.11.2004, Certified on 4.12.2004

Valuation (Customs)

Enhancement -- Contemporaneous import -- No evidence from the records to show that the goods of Russian origin are poor in quality than the goods of USA or Poland origin -- It is for the revenue to show that the contemporaneous imports at the higher value -- They relied upon bills of entry showing imports at a higher rate of goods of different countries of origin & hence cannot be called contemporaneous.

PRESENT :

Shri S.R. Dixit, Adv. for the appellant.

Shri Sanjay Singhal, JDR for the respondent.

Per : Mrs. Archana Wadhwa

Vide impugned order the authorities below have enhanced the value of prime cold rolled grain oriented electrical steel sheets imported by the appellants from Russia, from the declared value of US $ 1180 per metric ton to US $ 1350 per metric ton. The above enhancement has been made on the basis of the importations made from USA and of the goods of Poland origin. The appellant's contention is that the goods of Russian origin are cheaper in quality and in any case the revenue did not have any evidence to discard the contract value.

2. After hearing the Ld. DR, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not accepted the appellant's stand on the ground that they have not produced any evidence from the records to show that the goods of Russian origin are poor in quality than the goods of USA or Poland origin. We do not appreciate the above observation of the appellate authority, inasmuch as it was for the revenue to show the contemporaneous imports at the higher value. Admittedly they relied upon the bills of entry showing imports at a higher rate of goods of different countries of origin and hence, cannot be called contemporaneous. It is also seen that the contract was entered by the appellants with the foreign suppliers after negotiations and there is nothing on record to show that the contract value did not represent the correct value of the goods.

3. In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.

………………………..