2013 (12) TMI 36 - AT - Customs

Assessable value of flatbed knitting machine/crochet yarn machine - Enhancement in value of flatbed knitting machine/crochet yarn machine - Revenue s chartered engineer declared that value assessed by assessee is appropriate - Therefore Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the enhanced value of flatbed knitting machine/crochet yarn machine - Held that - the chartered engineer s certificate has endorsed the value declared by the respondents as the correct value. The chartered engineer was appointed by the Revenue itself and its opinion cannot be discarded lightly. Further, as pointed out by the ld. Advocate and as also recorded in the impugned order by Commissioner (Appeals), the bill of entry on which reliance is placed was provisionally assessed. As such it cannot be said that the same fits into the definition of contemporaneous evidence - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order of enhancement of assessable value by the adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
1. The dispute in this case revolves around the assessable value of flatbed knitting machine/crochet yarn machine imported by the respondent from China. The importers declared a value of US $3,000 per set, which was later enhanced by the assessing authority to US $4,500 per set. The respondent challenged this enhancement before the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The appellate authority, in the impugned order, noted that the goods underwent examination under the first check procedure to determine their physical condition and the declared value. The opinion of a local chartered engineer, appointed by the Revenue, supported the declared value of US $3,000 per set. Despite this, the assessing officer increased the value to US $4,500 per set based on another bill of entry dated 25-4-2007, where the value was enhanced by the Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the enhancement order, citing no contemporaneous import of the goods and the approval of the transaction value by the Revenue's chartered engineer.

3. The Revenue appealed the decision, arguing that the respondents had cleared the goods by paying duty at the higher value of US $4,500 per set without lodging a protest. The Revenue relied on a Tribunal decision stating that once an enhanced value is accepted by the importer, they cannot challenge it later. However, the respondents contended that they paid the duty under protest to clear the goods promptly and avoid complications. They also highlighted that the duty was paid under protest as mentioned in the order-in-appeal, indicating their disagreement with the enhanced value.

4. The Tribunal agreed with the respondents, emphasizing that the transaction value declared by the importers should be accepted unless there is evidence to doubt or reject it. The Revenue failed to provide such evidence. Moreover, the chartered engineer appointed by the Revenue endorsed the declared value as correct. The bill of entry used for enhancement was provisional and not considered contemporaneous evidence, further supporting the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected all appeals filed by the Revenue.