2012 (11) TMI 409 - AT - Customs

Order of enhancement of the value - assessee not having the manufacturer s invoice and that the goods were not covered by any letter of credit - Held that - The appellant has imported old and used worn clothing/rags which are to be used for reclaiming purpose as the goods are old and used worn clothing. There is no manufacturer of the same goods as the same are scraps, therefore, the manufacturer s invoice is not available and the same is not required. As the impugned goods are not imported under letter of credit against the letter of credit, therefore, letter of credit for the same does not arise. The appellant himself is a regular importer of the same goods and the appellant is produced at least 50 bills of entry of the same goods during the impugned period. Therefore, the same has not been considered by the adjudicating authority while assessing the goods. Therefore, the decision taken by the adjudicating authority as well as the lower appellate authority is not sustainable when there is an evidence on record produced by the appellant that contemporaneous imports of the impugned goods during the impugned period is available at 0.12 US per Kg. for the similar goods. Also that the appellant has imported goods at a price of 0.13 US per Kg. in the impugned bills of entry. Therefore, the loading of value on the declared price in the bills of entry is not sustainable when the price of similar goods for the same period is available in appellant s own case - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported goods under EOU Scheme

Analysis:
The judgment involves a dispute regarding the valuation of imported goods under the EOU Scheme. The appellant, a 100% EOU, imported mixed synthetic wool/(hosiery) fumigated worn clothing suitable for reclaiming fiber. The primary issue revolved around the declared unit price and valuation of the impugned goods. The appellant failed to produce the manufacturer's invoice and letter of credit, stating that the goods were textile scrap/rags intended for reclaiming fiber, not wearable clothing. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the declared value and determined a value of US $ 2.61 per Kg based on contemporaneous imports. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially set aside the enhancement of value, but the Revenue appealed, leading to remand proceedings. The Commissioner (Appeals) eventually confirmed the order-in-original, prompting the appellant's appeal to the Tribunal.

The appellant argued that the goods were old and used clothing, making a manufacturer's invoice irrelevant, and no letter of credit was obtained as the goods were scraps. They contended that the adjudicating authority lacked evidence of contemporaneous imports and relied on bills of entry from another EOU, where the value was loaded without objection. The appellant, a regular importer of the goods, presented 50 bills of entry showing varying prices for similar goods during the impugned period. They proposed adopting the lowest price among these bills. Conversely, the Revenue supported the impugned order.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the imported goods were old and used worn clothing/rags meant for reclaiming, rendering a manufacturer's invoice unnecessary. As the goods were not imported under a letter of credit, its absence was justified. The Tribunal noted that the value was enhanced based on contemporaneous imports by another EOU, where the appellant's own import prices were not considered. Evidence showed contemporaneous imports of the impugned goods at 0.12 US $ per Kg, lower than the appellant's import price of 0.13 US $ per Kg. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the loading of value on the declared price unsustainable, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the availability of evidence on contemporaneous imports at a lower price and the inconsistency in valuing the goods based on similar imports by another party. The decision highlighted the importance of considering the appellant's own import prices and set aside the order enhancing the value of the imported goods, providing relief to the appellant.