2013 (5) TMI 467 - AT - Customs

Enhancement of unit price - rejection of declared transaction value - Held that - As at the time of import the declared per unit price of mother board imported by the respondent is 16 USD, the Assistant Commissioner has enhanced the same to 26.85 USD without assigning any reason. It is well settled law that the declared transaction value can be rejected only if it does not satisfy the criteria as prescribed for the same in proviso to Rule 3(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules 2007 or that the proper officer after following, the procedure prescribed in Rule 12 of the valuation Rule had come to conclusion that there are reasons to doubt the correctness of the declared transaction value. In this case no reasons have been given by the assessing officer for rejecting the declared value and enhancing the per unit price. Also bill of entry relied for rejecting the declared value and enhancing the same is in respect of goods classifiable under sub heading 84733030 which covers the printed circuit board while the goods imported in this case are plain mother boards classifiable under 84733020 and thus bill of entry relied upon by the department is also not applicable to this consignment. In favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of customs duty based on declared value of imported goods.
2. Rejection of declared transaction value and enhancement of unit price by the Assistant Commissioner.
3. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the assessment of duty.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the import of 490 pieces of P-4 motherboards with a declared market price of 16 USD per piece. The Assistant Commissioner increased the value per unit to USD 26.85 without providing any justification, leading to the assessment of duty based on this revised value.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order, citing the lack of reasons for rejecting the declared transaction value and raising the unit price. The Revenue filed an appeal against this decision, arguing that evidence from a contemporaneous import justified the increase in unit price to 25 USD.

3. During the hearing, the Department highlighted a bill of entry from another import that supposedly showed a higher price for similar goods. However, the respondent contended that there was no evidence of contemporaneous import at a higher price. They argued that the goods were different from those in the bill of entry relied upon by the Department, which covered printed circuit boards, unlike the plain motherboards they had imported directly from the manufacturer.

4. The Tribunal considered both parties' arguments and examined the records. It emphasized that the declared transaction value could only be rejected if it did not meet the criteria set by the Customs Valuation Rules or if there were valid reasons to doubt its accuracy. In this case, the Assistant Commissioner had failed to provide any reasons for increasing the unit price. Additionally, the bill of entry cited by the Department pertained to different goods, further supporting the rejection of the enhanced value.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no fault with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to set aside the Assistant Commissioner's assessment. It concluded that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it, affirming the original order.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the assessment of customs duty based on declared values and the rejection of such values without proper justification. It also underscores the importance of adhering to the prescribed rules and providing valid reasons for any adjustments in the valuation of imported goods.