Page 275 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIR), CHENNAI v. ABC LEATHERS 713

goods were cleared from the same port. Instead of considering the same as con-
temporaneous import, the Commissioner has relied upon imports from China.
Further, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sounds N. Images
cited supra held that the charge of undervaluation must be established through
proper method under law and that burden cannot be shifted to the importer
whereas in the present case, the Department has failed to establish the charge of
undervaluation through proper methods known to the law of valuation under
Customs. Similarly, in the case of Damehra Steels and Forgoing (P) Ltd. cited supra,
the Tribunal held that “It is well-settled principle of law that whenever the charge of
under-invoicing is laid against the importer, it is the duty of the authorities to make nec-
essary investigation with regard to price at which the goods of like kind and quality were
being imported, charge of under-invoicing has to be supported by evidence by producing
contemporaneous import of like kind goods.” In the present case, instead of collecting
the proper data regarding the price at which the goods of the like kind and quali-
ty are being imported, the department resorted to Rule 9.
9. In view of our discussions above, we are of the considered view that
the impugned orders re-fixing the price than the price declared by the importer is
not sustainable in law and therefore, we set aside the impugned order by allow-
ing the appeals of the appellant with consequential relief, if any.
(Order was pronounced in open Court on 11-2-2020)

_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 713 (Tri. - Chennai)
IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
[COURT NO. III]

Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (J) and Shri Anil G. Shakkarwar,
Member (T)
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIR), CHENNAI
Versus
ABC LEATHERS
Final Order No. 40670/2020, dated 2-3-2020 in Appeal No. C/40420/2013-DB
Leather - Finished leather - CLRI report indicating that goods are fin-
ished leather - Such goods classifiable under Tariff Item 4102 29 20 of Customs
Tariff Act, 1975 and not under Chapter 59 ibid as textile materials. [para 1]
Appeal dismissed
REPRESENTED BY : Shri M. Jagan Babu, Authorized Representative, for
the Appellant.
None, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (J)]. - With regard to the ap-
peal filed by the department, the Learned Authorised Representative Shri M.
Jagan Babu submitted that the issue is with regard to the classification of the
goods. The department has alleged that the goods fall under Chapter 59, which
relates to textile materials whereas, the appellant has classified the same as fin-

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  275