Page 228 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

138 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

was ‘nil’ duty at the time of assessment of appellant Bill of Entry and subse-
quently in the final notification there is a difference of Anti-dumping duty on the
higher side.
7. Thus, situation in the aforesaid case and the case before us is identi-
cal. The Tribunal has taken a view, in such circumstances differential Anti-
dumping duty is not payable. Though the aforesaid decision is Interim Stay or-
der but we agree with the view expressed by the Tribunal. As regard, the judg-
ments relied upon by the Learned Authorized Representative, We find that none
of the judgments is on the identical facts of the present case, therefore, the same
are not applicable.
8. As per our above discussion, we are of the clear view that in terms of
Rule, 21(1) the appellant are not liable to pay the differential Anti-dumping duty.
Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside, appeals are allowed.
(Pronounced in the open Court on 7-2-2020)
_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 138 (Tri. - Bang.)
IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE
[COURT NO. I]
S/Shri S.S. Garg, Member (J) and C.J. Mathew, Member (T)
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN
Versus
HAMZA MOHAMMED KUNHI

Final Order No. A/20104/2020, dated 10-2-2020 in Appeal No. C/9/2009 and Cross
Objection No. C/Cross/62/2009
Valuation (Customs) - Imported ‘Toyota Land Cruiser’ - Misdeclara-
tion of year of manufacture and valuation, evidence of - Revenue alleging
tampering with Chassis number on the basis of information furnished by M/s.
Toyota Kirloskar Motors, Bangalore - HELD : No infirmity in Commissioner
(Appeals) conclusion that in absence of any physical evidence of tampering,
clarification of interested third party cannot be sufficient reason for rejection
of invoice value and no reason for casually rejecting Dubai Police Certificate
of Export - Impugned order upheld - Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962. [paras 5,
6]
Appeal dismised
CASES CITED
Ahammed Kunhi v. Commissioner — 2007 (218) E.L.T. 270 (Tribunal) — Referred ...................... [Para 4]
Motor Industries Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2009 (244) E.L.T. 4 (S.C.) — Referred .................... [Para 4]
Narayan Nambiar Meloth v. Commissioner — 2009 (233) E.L.T. 77 (Tribunal) — Referred ........ [Para 4]
Segu Mohammed Hanas v. Commissioner — 2006 (196) E.L.T. 218 (Tribunal) — Referred ......... [Para 4]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Rama Holla, Superintendent (AR), for the
Appellant.
Shri P.A. Augustian, Advocate, for the Respondent.
[Order per : S.S. Garg, Member (J)]. - The present appeal has been filed
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  228