Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Sai Exports vs Commissioner Of Customs, (Import), ... on 1 March, 2018
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
Appeal No.C/40938 & 40939/2014
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal C.Cus. No.528 & 529/2014 dated 24.3.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai)
M/s. Sai Exports Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs, (Import), Chennai Respondent
Appearance Shri S. Murugappan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri A.Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing / Decision: 01.03.2018 Final Order No. 40521-40522 / 2018 Per Bench Aggrieved by the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), appellant has filed both these appeals. The dispute involved in these appeals relate to assessable value of knitted fabric (100% knitted polyester) in Appeal No. C/41938/2014 and knitted fabric (97% Rayon and 3% Spandex) in Appeal No.C/41939/2014 imported by the appellant in a number of consignments. The customs authorities enhanced the declared value on the basis of contemporaneous NIDB data which the Commissioner (Appeals) vide a common impugned order No. 528 & 529/2014 dated 24.3.2014 has upheld the enhancements so caused. Aggrieved, the appellants are before this Tribunal.
2. Today, when the matter was heard, ld. counsel Shri S. Murugappan submits that the enhancement of declared value on the basis of NIDB data has been held as improper in number of decisions of the Tribunal. He places reliance on the following decisions:-
(a) Sarda Energy And Minerals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur 2018 (359) ELT 262
(b) Commissioner of Customs Vs. Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (295) ELT 726
(c) Commissioner of Customs Vs. Marble Art 2013 (289) ELT 346
(d) Commissioner of Customs Vs. Nath International 2013 (289) ELT 305
3. On the other hand, ld. AR supports the impugned order.
4. We find force in the argument of the ld. counsel that the declared import values in both these cases were enhanced on the basis of NIDB data. It is well settled that NIDB data cannot be used to enhance the value of imported goods in number of decisions cited by the ld. counsel. Hence the impugned order cannot sustain and is set aside. The appeals succeed with consequential relief if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Madhu Mohan Damodhar) (Sulekha Beevi C.S.)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Rex
2
3