2017 (4) TMI 1307 - AT - Customs

Valuation - adoption of NIDB value - Held that - admittedly, the imported chemical having not been identified with any particular quality or grade, can be compared to similar item imported during the same period, from the same country. When comparable transaction level is taken into consideration, there cannot be any illegality in adopting the price for assessment. In the present case, we are dealing with a defined chemical with no evidence of variation in grade or quality. In such situation, a difference of almost 500% in value cannot be brushed aside. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported goods, justification of declared value, application of NIDB data, imposition of fine and penalty

In the present case, the issue revolves around the valuation of Triglycidyl Isocyanurate (TGIC) imported by the appellant. The appellant declared a unit price of US$ 1.05 per K.G. for Customs duty, which was later enhanced by the Assessing Officer to US $ 6.236 per K.G. due to doubts regarding the correctness of the declared value. The appellant argued that they imported 4th grade TGIC and supported the declared value with Proforma invoice, invoice, and foreign exchange remittance. The appellant contended that there was no legal basis to reject the declared value, as evidenced by previous similar consignments being accepted at the declared value. The appellant also sought a waiver of the imposed fine and penalty, citing no grounds for confiscation of goods or penalties. The appellant relied on a Tribunal decision to argue against the automatic adoption of NIDB data for valuation of imported items.

The appellant's position was countered by the Department, which highlighted that the import documents did not specify the grade or quality of the imported product, undermining the appellant's claim of importing 4th grade TGIC. The Department pointed out a significant difference in values between the appellant's declared value and other bills of entry covering similar imports from the same country during the relevant period. The Department justified the adoption of the lowest price from comparable bills of entry for the valuation of the appellant's import. The Department also defended the imposition of fine and penalty, stating that they were proportionate to the CIF value. The Department emphasized that the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claim, along with the specific nature of the product, warranted the valuation approach taken by the Customs authorities.

The Tribunal analyzed the arguments presented by both sides, emphasizing that the imported chemical lacked identification with any specific quality or grade. The Tribunal found that comparing the appellant's import to similar items from the same country during the same period was a valid approach for valuation. The Tribunal differentiated the present case from a previous Tribunal decision involving PU Coated Fabrics, where variations in quality justified a different valuation approach. The Tribunal concluded that a significant difference in value, without evidence of grade or quality variation, could not be overlooked. After reviewing the impugned order and the appeal documents, the Tribunal found no reason to overturn the decision, leading to the rejection of the appeal.