2011 (5) TMI 794 - AT - Customs

Valuation of goods - declared by the importer as marble carving and statues. The value declared by the respondent is not accepted by the Revenue and the adjudicating authority is held that the declared value will be loaded by 250% - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) while taking into consideration the price of the raw materials held that the value of goods should be two times of the value of raw material and further held that loading should be restricted to 50%, no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed

Summary

Issues involved:
Valuation of goods declared as marble carving and statues, Percentage of loading on declared value, Interpretation of Commissioner (Appeals) order.

Valuation of goods:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the valuation of goods declared as marble carving and statues. The Revenue did not accept the value declared by the importer, leading to a dispute over the percentage of loading on the declared value. The adjudicating authority initially determined that the declared value should be loaded by 250%. The Commissioner (Appeals), after reviewing the evidence, modified the order, restricting the loading to 50%. The Revenue challenged this modification, arguing that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide adequate reasoning and that there was a contradiction in the order.

Interpretation of Commissioner (Appeals) order:
The Commissioner (Appeals) justified the modification by considering the value declared per Kg and the rate at which Rough Marble Blocks were cleared at the Customs House. After factoring in wastage, insurance, packing, and labor charges, the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the value of the marbles should be at least twice the raw material price, i.e., not less than U.S. $600 per M.T. Therefore, the loading was restricted to 50% based on this assessment. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) decision was contradictory as it assessed the goods at U.S. $600 per M.T while restricting the loading to 50%. However, the Tribunal found no contradiction in the Commissioner (Appeals) order, noting that the loading restriction was based on a clear consideration of the raw material value and additional costs. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.