2010 (8) TMI 719 - AT - Customs

Transaction value in respect of both the Bills of Entry - Revenue has no case that the importer had remitted any amount in excess of what was declared and substantiated by remittance particulars from the concerned bank Held that - Revenue also does not have a case that identical goods had been contemporaneously imported at higher value and the value accepted by the Original Authority was not transaction value which had to be rejected invoice price of the goods imported was not influenced by any relationship no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue hence rejected

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported goods, remand of valuation aspect for fresh assessment, examination of contemporaneous imports, correctness of declared value.

In this case, the appeal filed by the revenue sought to remand the aspect of valuation by setting aside the order impugned before the Commissioner (A). The facts involved M/s. Alstom Projects India Ltd. importing Heat Recovery Steam Generators and accessories under two Bills of Entry. The Original Authority finalized the assessment at a merit rate instead of the concessional rate applicable to project imports. The importers submitted bank remittance particulars and other relevant documents related to expenses paid to the supplier. The Original Authority accepted the assessable value declared by the importer but demanded differential duty due to non-fulfillment of Regulation 7 of PIR regarding reconciliation statements.

The Commissioner (A) upheld the Original Authority's order after examining the payments made by the importer and the Order-in-Original issued by GATT Valuation Cell. The revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the Assistant Commissioner had not verified the declared value before accepting it. The revenue sought a remand of the valuation aspect to examine contemporaneous imports and verify the declared value's correctness.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the Original Authority had conducted necessary inquiries before accepting the declared value. There was no evidence of excess remittances or contemporaneous imports at higher values. The Tribunal found merit in the importer's submission that the transaction value was correctly accepted, as there was no proposal in the show cause notice to reject or enhance the value. The GATT Valuation Cell had also confirmed that the invoice price was not influenced by any relationship. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's appeal, concluding that there was no merit in challenging the accepted transaction value.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision regarding the valuation of the imported goods, finding that the Original Authority had appropriately assessed the declared value. The appeal for remand of the valuation aspect was rejected, as there was no evidence to support a rejection or enhancement of the transaction value.