Page 232 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

142 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

actual tampering in this case. Rather the contrary has been noted both in
show cause memo and Order-in-Original. In this case therefore I agree with
the contention that we have to follow the Rule laid by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in CA No. 8950 of 2006 that Customs duty of an imported car should
be assessed as per Invoice value, since the tampering has not been even al-
leged in this case. The learned adjudicating authority has noted that the
credibility of the invoice is in serious doubt only on the basis of the above
mentioned report of TKM. Serious doubt, even if it is there, is not sufficient
to reject the invoice value. In the absence of any physical evidence of tam-
pering a clarificatory second report of an interested third party cannot be a
sufficient reason for rejection of invoice value. There is also no reason for
casually rejecting the Dubai Police Certificate of export. It is a sovereign
body’s report mentioning the year of manufacture and cannot be dismissed
lightly. I therefore accept the invoice value, since the value will be consid-
erably less when the year of manufacture is taken to be 1998 and not 2003, I
reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 1,50,000/- only and penalty to Rs.
50,000/- Only. The appeal is allowed to the above extent”.
6. In view of our discussion above and after perusal of the impugned
order, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the impugned
order which is upheld by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. Cross-Objection
also accordingly disposed of.
(Order was pronounced in open Court on 10-2-2020)
_______
2020 (373) E.L.T. 142 (Tri. - Ahmd.)

IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, AHMEDABAD
[COURT NO. III]
Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (J)
METRO BRIGHT BAR INDIA PVT. LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUNDRA
Final Order Nos. A/10553-10554/2020-WZB/AHD, dated 14-2-2020 in Appeal
Nos. C/12671-12672/2018
Imports - Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Coil - Confiscation of goods and
imposition of redemption fine for non-compliance with requirement of Stain-
less Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2016 - HELD : Goods shipped in
month of January, 2017 and Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control) Order,
2016 came into force on 7-2-2017 only - In terms of Para 2.17 of Foreign Trade
Policy, 2015-20 date of import ought to be reckoned, as per date of ship-
ment/dispatch from supplying country - Assessee not required to affix BIS
Mark on product imported - Impugned orders set aside - Sections 111 and 125
of Customs Act, 1962. [para 6]
Appeals allowed
CASES CITED
Royal Impex v. Commissioner — 2019 (366) E.L.T. 820 (Mad.) — Referred .................................... [Para 4]
Commissioner v. P.T. Impex — 2015 (321) E.L.T. 38 (P & H) — Referred ........................................ [Para 4]
Greatship (India) Ltd. v. Union of India — 2016 (338) E.L.T. 545 (Del.) — Referred ...................... [Para 4]
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  232