Page 271 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

2020 ] KARACHIRA COIR MANUFACTURERS v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN 709

the scheme planned well in advance for executing anti-national activity by de-
frauding the Revenue, as brought on record very succinctly by the Adjudicating
Authority in the form of unchallenged statements and the call records and for
these reasons, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
13. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 6-2-2020)
_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 709 (Tri. - Bang.)
IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE
[COURT NO. I]

S/Shri S.S. Garg, Member (J) and P. Anjani Kumar, Member (T)
KARACHIRA COIR MANUFACTURERS
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN

Final Order Nos. A/20105 & 20108/2020, dated 11-2-2020 in Appeal Nos. C/20411-
20412/2019
Valuation (Customs) - Transaction value - Enhancement of - Under-
valuation and misdeclaration of PVC Laminated sheets imported from Thai-
land, allegation of - HELD : Revenue’s allegation that supplier of goods ap-
pears to be trader and not manufacturer having no the basis - Goods imported
under ASEAN Agreement between two Sovereign States and if Department
having any reason or doubt regarding source of supply of material, depart-
ment could have taken appropriate steps to blacklist supplier - Moreover, re-
port of Central Institute of Plastic Engineering and Technology (CIPET), ob-
serving that PVC content is 51% and that LDPE and LLDPE, raw material for
impugned goods, not been considered by Commissioner - Information relied
upon by Commissioner available in Public Domain not admissible as evidence
in law when there is specific test report available of authorized agency - Fur-
ther, reliance placed by Commissioner upon imports from China cannot be
considered as contemporaneous import in case of goods imported from Thai-
land - Department failed to establish charge of undervaluation through proper
methods known to law of valuation under Customs as instead of collecting
proper data regarding price at which goods of the like kind and quality being
imported, department resorted to Rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination
of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - Impugned orders re-fixing price not
sustainable in law - Therefore, impugned order set aside - Section 14 of Cus-
toms Act, 1962. [paras 8, 9]
Appeals allowed
CASES CITED
Collector v. Nippon Bearings (P) Ltd. — 1996 (82) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) —
Referred ............................................................................................................................................... [Para 6]
Damehra Steels and Forgings Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector — 1996 (84) E.L.T. 116 (Tribunal) —
Relied on ....................................................................................................................................... [Paras 6, 8]
Sounds-N-Images v. Collector — 2000 (117) E.L.T. 538 (S.C.) — Referred .................................. [Paras 6, 8]
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  271