Page 233 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] TURAKHIA FERROMET PVT. LTD. v. COMMR. OF CUS. (IMPORT), MUMBAI 279

2020 (372) E.L.T. 279 (Tri. - Mumbai)
IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI
S/Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (T) and Ajay Sharma, Member (J)
TURAKHIA FERROMET PVT. LTD.
Versus
COMMR. OF CUS. (IMPORT), MUMBAI
Final Order No. A/86795/2019-WZB, dated 13-9-2019 in Appeal No. C/282/2011
Valuation (Customs) - Import value - Hot-rolled steel plates (non-
alloy) - Enhancement of value on basis of contemporary imports of similar
goods from same supplier by public sector unit, Mazgaon Dock Ltd. - HELD :
Rigidity of contract entered by public sector unit, lacks comparability with
flexibility in renegotiation of contract of assessee when price of steel claimed
to have declined sharply - Also Mazgaon Dock Ltd. imported ‘prime goods’
whereas as per assesee’s contract goods imported were ‘ex-stock’ and in much
higher quantity of goods - Circumstances in which Mazgaon Dock Ltd. en-
tered into contract with supplier and scope for flexibility arising from declin-
ing of price of steel may have impacted contract entered into by assessee al-
most year later, not considered - Mere reference to financial mandate of con-
tract, or enumeration of contemporaneous prices, does not excuse assessing
officer from obligation to ascertain acceptability of claim of reduction in steel
price being discernible even within a period of contemporaneous imports -
Imports by Mazgaon Dock Ltd. not to be designated as ‘similar’ merely be-
cause of being contemporaneous - Also, no efforts made by assessing officer to
ascertain manner in which alleged undervaluation compensated to such extent
as to warrant adoption of value almost double that of declared value - Such
excess undervaluation, as alleged, ought to have been subject to serious inves-
tigation and appropriate penalties imposed - Exercise of enhancement of value
so undertaken without sufficient evidence on hand - Impugned order set aside
- Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962. [paras 7, 8, 9, 10]
Appeal allowed
CASES CITED
African Trading Co. (P) Ltd. v. Collector — 1993 (64) E.L.T. 497 (Tribunal) — Referred ................ [Para 3]
Chirag Enterprises v. Commissioner — 2008 (232) E.L.T. 730 (Tribunal) — Referred ..................... [Para 3]
Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner
— 2008 (226) E.L.T. 420 (Tribunal) — Referred ............................................................................ [Para 3]
G.R. Batra v. Commissioner — 2004 (170) E.L.T. 571 (Tribunal) — Referred .................................... [Para 3]
Punjab Processors Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector — 2003 (157) E.L.T. 625 (S.C.) — Referred ........................ [Para 3]
Schokhi Industrials Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2002 (146) E.L.T. 462 (Tribunal)
— Referred ......................................................................................................................................... [Para 3]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri J.C. Patel, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri A.P. Kothari, Additional Commissioner (AR),
for the Respondent.
[Order per : C.J. Mathew, Member (T)]. - This appeal of M/s. Turakhia
Ferromet Pvt. Ltd. lies against order-in-appeal No. 105/MCH/AC/Gr.IV/2011,
dated 22nd March, 2011 of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-I
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  249