2016 (10) TMI 1004 - AT - Customs

Valuation - enhancement of value of the item Copra Expeller Cake where values of US 145 and US 142 per MT have been enhanced to US 158 per MT - Held that - The Revenue has enhanced the value giving the reason that the goods having same description were being cleared through Tuticorin Port at US 158 per MT. We find that the subject goods have been imported at Cochin Port and the value cited for comparison by the Revenue is for the goods which were imported at Tuticorin Port. Further, Revenue does not mention anything about quality and quantity of the goods with which the comparison has been made - The importer-appellant produced the relevant documents in support of the invoice value, however, the lower Revenue authorities did not give any reasons for rejecting the contents of the said documents. The orders of the lower Revenue authorities do not have sufficient legal justification to sustain the enhancement of the values; the enhancement of values ordered by the impugned orders appears to be more in the nature of an arbitrary act; and therefore, it is unsustainable. Reliance placed on the decision of the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. vs. CC, Mumbai 2000 (11) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA .

Summary

Issues: Appeal against enhancement of value of Copra Expeller Cake.

Analysis:
1. Enhancement of Value: The main issue in this case is the enhancement of the value of Copra Expeller Cake by the Revenue authorities from US$ 145 and US$ 142 per MT to US$ 158 per MT. The Revenue cited the reason for this enhancement as the contemporaneous import price of US$ 158 per MT at Tuticorin Port.

2. Appellant's Arguments: The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of cattle feed using Copra Expeller Cake as a raw material, argued that the transaction value declared by them should not be rejected based on a single contemporaneous import at Tuticorin Port. They highlighted that the Customs had not alleged any incorrect pricing due to a special relationship between the appellant and the supplier. The appellant provided various documents supporting the declared value, such as contracts, invoices, and letters of credit. They also emphasized that the Customs had not rejected these documents, making it improper to resort to Rule 6 for value fixation.

3. Revenue's Position: The Revenue, represented by Shri Mohammed Yousuf, supported the lower Revenue authorities' decision to enhance the value of the goods. However, they failed to provide adequate justification for rejecting the appellant's documented evidence supporting the declared value.

4. Judgment: After considering the submissions and case laws cited by both parties, the Tribunal found that the Revenue's enhancement of values lacked legal justification. They noted discrepancies in comparing goods imported at Cochin Port with those at Tuticorin Port, without considering quality and quantity aspects. The Tribunal concluded that the lower Revenue authorities' orders appeared arbitrary and unsustainable. Citing precedents like the Supreme Court's decision in Eicher Tractors Ltd. case and CESTAT Bangalore's decision in Global Industries case, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals in favor of the appellant, granting consequential benefits if applicable.