2016 (11) TMI 1492 - AT - Customs

Valuation - rejection of declared value - Held that - the first appellate authority has not completely examined the provisions of the Customs Valuation Rules, more specifically Rule 4(2) and the interpretative rules thereto which clearly indicates that the value of the imported goods shall not include the cost of after importation activities and the activities relatable to marketing of imported goods - Since the first appellate authority has overlooked these provisions, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to remand the matter back to the first appellate authority to reconsider the issue afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of declared value
2. Interpretation of Customs Valuation Rules

Analysis:
The judgment involves two appeals challenging Order-in-Appeal No. GOA/CUS/SNS/22/2005 & GOA/CUS/ SNS/21/2005, dated 29-11-2005. The main issue revolves around the rejection of the declared value by loading it on the grounds of a perceived one-sided contract between the supplier and the appellant. The appellant argues that additional discounts are for post-exportation expenses and surviving completion, which the first appellate authority failed to consider. Reference is made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) to support this argument.

Upon examination, it is found that the first appellate authority did not fully analyze the Customs Valuation Rules, particularly Rule 4(2) and the interpretative rules. These rules explicitly state that the value of imported goods should not include costs related to post-importation activities and marketing. Due to this oversight, the Tribunal deems it appropriate to remand the matter back to the first appellate authority for a fresh consideration of the issue. It is clarified that no observations on the case's merits have been made, leaving all issues open for the first appellate authority's decision.

In conclusion, the impugned order is set aside, and the appeals are remitted to the first appellate authority for a reevaluation of the issue while adhering to the principles of natural justice. The judgment emphasizes the importance of a thorough examination of relevant provisions and the need for a fair reconsideration of the matter.