2016 (1) TMI 1137 - AT - Customs

Valuation - rejection of transaction value - the appellant s own case 2009 (10) TMI 733 - CESTAT MUMBAI referred - Held that - for the like quantity, the imports made by the same appellant, the value was in dispute which is decided by this bench as cited in the appellant s case. The bench has come to a conclusion that declared value in the appellant s case needs to be accepted as the quantity imported in that case was 40 metric tonnes which is similar to the quantity imported in this appeal. The first appellate authority in remand proceedings has recorded that from the details of contemporaneous imports during the relevant period, the price declared by the appellants was the lowest price at the same time there are no details indicated in the impugned order as to the quantity of the goods imported and from the country where the said goods originated. In the absence of any such details, it cannot be held that the contemporaneous values being higher, the transaction value needs to be rejected - transaction value declared by the appellants is correct - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Dispute of valuation of imported goods

In this case, the issue revolved around the valuation of goods imported by the appellant. The appellant imported two consignments of antimony from Hong Kong with declared invoice values. The adjudicating authority rejected the transaction value and assessed the bills of entry at a higher value. The matter was remanded back to the lower authorities, who upheld the adjudication order after following due process. The appellant argued that a previous judgment in their favor should apply, where a similar transaction value was accepted due to a higher quantity of imports. The appellant also highlighted that contemporaneous import prices were lower than the transaction value. On the other hand, the department relied on judgments stating that transaction value can be rejected. The first appellate authority noted that the appellant's declared price was the lowest from contemporaneous imports, but failed to provide details on quantity and origin of goods. The appellate tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in rejecting the transaction value, as a previous judgment in the appellant's favor applied due to a similar quantity of imports. Therefore, the tribunal held the impugned order incorrect and unsustainable, setting it aside and allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.