M/S.Om Drishian International Ltd vs C.C.E.,Delhi-Iv

(Arising out of OIA No.36 to 39/Cus/Appl/DLH-IV/2009 dt.31.12.2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi-IV, Faridabad)

M/s.Om Drishian International Ltd. Appellants

Vs.

C.C.E.,Delhi-IV Respondent

Appearance:

Present for the Appellant: Shri Prem Ranjan, Advocate

Present for the Respondent: Shri D.V.Nagvenkar, AR

Honble Mr.P.K.Das, Member (Judicial)

Honble Mr.P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical)

1.

Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No

2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?

seen

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?

Yes

Coram: Honble Mr. P.K.Das, Member (Judicial)

Honble Mr.P.S.Pruthi, Member(Technical)

Date of Hearing/decision: 19.01.2015

FINAL ORDER NO.50196-50199/2015

PER: P.S.PRUTHI

The appellant are in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal in which the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the orders in assessment passed by the assessing authority.

2. The facts of the case are that the value of the goods, namely, ball bearings of china origin of HCS brand imported under four bills of entry by the appellant were loaded in respect of three bills of entry to the minimum floor price fixed @ US$ 3.00 per kg and in the case of fourth bill of entry, the value was enhanced to US$ 3.20 per kg.

3. Heard both sides.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellants stated that loading was done on the basis of guidelines issued by the Director General of Valuation and Nhava Sheva Ports Circular No.S/26-Misc-2195-VA dated 21.8.2009. In their own case, covering the same goods, imported vide Bill of Entry No.116800 dated 30.6.2009, CESTAT set aside the order of lower authorities enhancing the value and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.

5. Learned AR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).

6. Considered the submissions of both the sides. We note that, although a circular which issued guideline is based on extensive study done of value of the goods under consideration, actual rejection of value and determination of value in any particular case has to be done under the law by following legal provisions as laid down in the Customs Act read with Valuation Rules. Enhancement of value simply on the basis of a circular issued by port authority is not sustainable in law. We also find that earlier, in the case of same importer, the Tribunal vide its order No.54677-54680/2014-EX dated 22.10.2014 had set aside the order of enhancement of value.

7. Following the precedent decision, we hold that the impugned order is not sustainable.

8. All the Appeals are allowed with consequential relief in accordance with law.

(Pronounced in the court)

(P.S.PRUTHI) (P.K.DAS)

MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

mk

1