2016 (10) TMI 1085 - AT - Customs

Valuation - Iranian Pistachios with Shell - enhancement of value - value enhanced solely on the basis of European Public Ledger - Held that - It is settled that for applying the comparable price of any goods, it is necessary to bring on record that the quality of goods is identical, country of origin is same and the quantity of goods imported and the quantity of the comparable import is also same - In the present case obviously when the price was taken from the European Public Ledger no quantity or any particular import might have been referred in the public ledger - there is no discussion or any evidence taken on record which can show that the price mentioned in European Public Ledger is in respect of the same quality/quantity of goods and from the same country of origin - the price mentioned in the European Public Ledger cannot be blindly applied for enhancement of the declared invoice value of the respondent - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Enhancement of declared value of imported goods based on European Public Ledger, rejection of transaction value, relevance of contemporaneous imports, consideration of NIDB price, appeal against Commissioner's decision.

Analysis:
The main issue in this case was the enhancement of the declared value of imported goods, specifically "Iranian Pistachios with Shell," based on information from the European Public Ledger. The adjudicating authority had increased the value from US $3.5 per kg to US $4.22 per kg solely relying on the European Public Ledger. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, emphasizing that the transaction value cannot be rejected based solely on a public ledger without supporting evidence of contemporaneous imports at higher values.

During the appeal, the Assistant Commissioner representing the Revenue argued that the adjudicating authority was justified in enhancing the value based on the European Public Ledger. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner should not have interfered without evidence supporting the declared price of the respondent.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal observed that the adjudicating authority had indeed relied solely on the European Public Ledger without verifying if the prices were for goods of the same quality, quantity, and country of origin. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity of establishing identical quality, origin, and quantity for comparing prices. In contrast, the respondent provided evidence of similar goods being cleared at a lower price of about US $3 per kg, as per the NIDB price. The Tribunal deemed the NIDB price more relevant than the general price in the European Public Ledger, as the latter lacked specifics regarding quality and quantity. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to set aside the value enhancement, emphasizing the importance of considering relevant and specific pricing information.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision and rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the significance of providing concrete evidence and considering specific pricing details rather than relying solely on general references like public ledgers.