2011 (6) TMI 305 - AT - Customs

Enhancement of the value of the goods imported by the respondent - assessing officer has not indicated any reason on the bill of entry for enhancement of the value nor there is any speaking order - revenue has not lead any evidence as regards the contemporaneous value of the similar goods imported at or on the same time period or in similar quantities - appeal filed by the revenue is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Enhancement of imported goods' value without proper basis and rejection of transaction value.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the revenue against the Order-in-Appeal that set aside the assessment done by the assessing officer on a bill of entry for 'Self Adhesive Plastic Sheeting in Rolls'. The respondent declared a value of $350 per Metric Tonne, but the assessing officer enhanced it to $700 per Metric Tonne without providing any reason or speaking order. The main issue was the enhancement of the value without a valid basis, leading to the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals).

The Ld. DR argued that the transaction value was rejected under Customs Valuation Rules, and the valuation was done under Rule 6 based on similar imports. The Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) set aside the assessment, noting that the acceptance of enhanced value for clearance does not prevent the appellant from challenging it. The appellant contended that the assessing authority did not present any evidence or basis for loading the value, as required under the law.

The Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) highlighted that the rejection of transaction value without evidence is impermissible under the law. The Supreme Court's decision in a similar case emphasized that the Department must provide clear evidence to reject transaction value. In this case, no evidence was presented to show that the transaction value was incorrect. The absence of a speaking order for rejecting the transaction value was also noted as a procedural flaw.

The Tribunal found that the revenue failed to provide evidence of contemporaneous value for similar imports, which led to the setting aside of the assessment. The case laws cited by the Ld. DR were distinguished as they involved consent from the assessee for value enhancement, which was lacking in this case. Due to the lack of evidence supporting the enhancement of value, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals)'s decision to reject the appeal filed by the revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the impugned order to be legally sound and rejected the revenue's appeal due to the absence of evidence supporting the enhancement of value. The decision was based on the requirement for clear evidence and procedural correctness in rejecting transaction value under the Customs Valuation Rules.