C/10760/2021 — MEGHMANI INDUSTRIES LTD vs AHMEDABAD

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT AHMEDABAD

REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO. 03

Customs Appeal No. 10760 of 2021

[Arising out of OIA-AHM-CUSTM-000-APP-408-412-20-21 dated 19/11/2020
passed by Commissioner of CUSTOMS-AHMEDABAD] MEGHMANI INDUSTRIES LTD …..Appellant Plot No. 27, Phase I, GIDC Industrial Estate, Vatva, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
VERSUS C.C.-AHMEDABAD

 …..Respondent 

Custom House, Near All India Radio, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat WITH

Customs Appeal No. 10761 of 2021

[Arising out of OIA-AHM-CUSTM-000-APP-408-412-20-21 dated 19/11/2020
passed by Commissioner of CUSTOMS-AHMEDABAD] MEGHMANI INDUSTRIES LTD …..Appellant Plot No. 27, Phase I, GIDC Industrial Estate, Vatva, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
VERSUS C.C.-AHMEDABAD

 …..Respondent 

Custom House, Near All India Radio, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

AND

Customs Appeal No. 10771 of 2021

[Arising out of OIA-AHM-CUSTM-000-APP-408-412-20-21 dated 19/11/2020
passed by Commissioner of CUSTOMS-AHMEDABAD] MEGHMANI INDUSTRIES LTD …..Appellant Plot No.

g out of OIA-AHM-CUSTM-000-APP-408-412-20-21 dated 19/11/2020
passed by Commissioner of CUSTOMS-AHMEDABAD] MEGHMANI INDUSTRIES LTD …..Appellant Plot No. 27, Phase I, GIDC Industrial Estate, Vatva, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
VERSUS C.C.-AHMEDABAD

 …..Respondent 

Custom House, Near All India Radio, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

APPEARANCE: Shri S. Bissa, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Himanshu P. Shrimali, Superintendent for the Respondent

2 C/10760/10761 & 10771/2021-DB

CORAM: HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. RAMESH NAIR
HON'BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL), MR. RAJU

FINAL ORDER NO.A/10121-10123 /2024

                                                          DATE OF HEARING: 04.12.2023 
                                                           DATE OF DECISION: 09.01.2024 

RAJU

These appeals have been filed by M/s. Meghmani Industries Ltd. against rejection of the value declared for the purpose of the import.
2. The appellant filed bill of entry for import of Cyanuric Chloride from China declaring unit price of USD 1.55 per kg. The assessing officer found that, the declared value was less as compare to regular contemporary imports of same products. The value was revised by the assessing officer to USD 1.9 per kg. The original adjudicating authority did not grant any relief to the appellant.

e to regular contemporary imports of same products. The value was revised by the assessing officer to USD 1.9 per kg. The original adjudicating authority did not grant any relief to the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) who also rejected their appeals. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant are before this tribunal. The Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that appellant had placed a bulk order of 2000 MT which were to be received in a staggered manner. He argued that the appellant got a better price because of huge quantity ordered. The Learned Counsel argued that since the order placed by the appellant to the supplier was a bulk order of 2000 MT, they got a price, which was more competitive than the price which were offered to all buyers who were buying in smaller quantities. The Learned Counsel argued that the NIDB data which is being compared to the appellant import is for import of much smaller quantities as compared to the price negotiated by the appeal 2000 MT.
3. Learned AR relied on the impugned order.
4. We are considered rival submission, we find that the original adjudicating authority while rejecting the declared value has considered the following data for the purpose of contemporaneous import.

We are considered rival submission, we find that the original adjudicating authority while rejecting the declared value has considered the following data for the purpose of contemporaneous import.

3 C/10760/10761 & 10771/2021-DB TABLE-I Data of Contemporary imports at ICD-Khodiyar BE No. BE Date Country of Origin
Currency Quantity UQC Unit Price 4522678 16/08/2019 CHINA USD 29000 KGS 2.175 4594852 22/08/2019 CHINA USD 15000 KGS 2.1 4602867 22/08/2019 CHINA USD 30000 KGS 2.13 4605834 23/08/2019 CHINA USD 15000 KGS 2.12 4633528 26/08/2019 CHINA USD 30000 KGS 2.02 4655263 27/08/2019 CHINA USD 15000 KGS 2.13 4655853 27/08/2019 CHINA USD 13000 KGS 2.13 4674529 28/08/2019 CHINA USD 30000 KGS 2.175 4681379 28/08/2019 CHINA USD 15000 KGS 2.15 4749263 03/09/2019 CHINA USD 30000 KGS 2.15 4749446 03/09/2019 CHINA USD 8362.4 KGS 2.1 4749446 03/09/2019 CHINA USD 6637.6 KGS 2.1 4761652 04/09/2019 CHINA USD 30000 KGS 2.02 4785806 05/09/2019 CHINA USD 15000 KGS 2.2 4803241 07/09/2019 CHINA USD 15000 KGS 2.1 4813493 07/09/2019 CHINA USD 15000 KGS 2.15

TABLE-II Port of Import Bills of entry No. Bill of entry date Country of origin Quantity Assessable value in Rs.

A USD 15000 KGS 2.1 4813493 07/09/2019 CHINA USD 15000 KGS 2.15

TABLE-II Port of Import Bills of entry No. Bill of entry date Country of origin Quantity Assessable value in Rs. INSBI6 4380213 06/08/2019 CN 30000 163.1 INSBI6 4339380 09/08/2019 CN 15000 151.37 INSBI6 4444104 10/08/2019 CN 18000 145.6 INSBI6 4465933 13/08/2019 CN 15000 155 INSBI6 4490462 14/08/2019 CN 15000 154 INSBI6 4509768 16/08/2019 CN 15000 15.0.89 INHZA1 4552563 19/08/2019 CN 108000 136.52 INHZA1 4553420 19/08/2019 CN 54000 136.52 INSBI6 4633528 26-08-2019 CN 30000 145.14 INSBI6 4655853 27-08-2019 CN 13000 153.04 INNSA1 4681118 28-08-2019 CN 11000 152.32 INNSA1 4680024 28-08-2019 CN 90000 136.52 INSBI6 4674529 28-08-2019 CN 30000 156.27

4 C/10760/10761 & 10771/2021-DB INSBI6 4761652 04-09-2019 CN 30000 145.14 INSBI6 4785806 05-09-2019 CN 15000 158.07 INNSA1 4795047 06-09-2019 CH 20000 167.44 INSBI6 4813652 07-09-2019 CN 15000 153.3 INSBI6 4813493 07-09-2019 CN 15000 159.85

From the NIDB and contemporaneous import data relied by the revenue, it is seen that the maximum import is of 108 MT vide bill of entry no. 4552563. In the said case the import has happened at Rs. 136.52 per kg. In the same table. It is also seen that, for a quantity of 15 tons imported roughly at the same time, the price assessed was Rs. 159.89 per kg. From the above, it is seen that for a small variation for import quantity from 20 tons to 108 tones, there is a price variation from Rs. 150.89 per kg. to Rs. 136.52 per kg.

was Rs. 159.89 per kg. From the above, it is seen that for a small variation for import quantity from 20 tons to 108 tones, there is a price variation from Rs. 150.89 per kg. to Rs. 136.52 per kg. In the instance case, the price negotiated is for 2000 MT does not appear to be out of place. The appellant has submitted data which indicates out of 2000 MT, they had imported 1128 MT during 15.07.2019 to 03.01.2020. Moreover, it is seen that no evidence other than NIDB data has been cited in the proceedings by the lower authorities. In these circumstances, we hold that the quantity imported by the appellant is significantly different from the quantity listed in NIDB data relied by the revenue and therefore, the two cannot be compared in this circumstances. 5. We do not find any merit in the orders the said order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (Pronounced in the open court on 09.01.2024)

                              (Ramesh Nair) 
         Member (Judicial) 

(Raju) Member (Technical) Dharmi