2013 (12) TMI 524 - AT - Customs

Valuation of electric motor imported by the applicant from China - Motor imported by the applicant was of Y series whereas the price of EG and Y2 service stands adopted by the Commissioner - Held that - entire case of Revenue is mainly based upon the NIDB data and Chartered Engineer expert opinion. As regards NIDB data, it stands held in various decision that the same cannot be adopted as the sole basis for enhancing the value and the evidence of contemporaneous imports is required. The contemporaneous import should also be in respect of the same type of goods, matching in all respects and even a minor difference in the imported goods and the contemporaneous imports would make the contemporaneous evidence as ineffective. We also note that there is no evidence to discard the transaction value, which is a pre-requisite for enhancing the assessable value based upon the other evidences. As such, at this prima facie stage, we are of the view that the appellant has been able to make a good case in its favour so as to allow both the stay petitions unconditionally - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported electric motors, reliance on NIDB data, opinion of Chartered Engineer, cross-examination of expert, stay petitions

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, the issue revolves around the valuation of imported electric motors, specifically the 'Y' series, and the reliance on the NIDB data for enhancing the assessable value. The appellant contested the enhanced value arrived at by the adjudicating authority based on the NIDB data, arguing that the comparison was inaccurate as the motors imported were of different series. The appellant also questioned the expertise of the Chartered Engineer whose opinion was relied upon, stating that a proper valuation requires examination of the product's efficiency and quality, which was not done. The appellant's request for cross-examination of the Chartered Engineer was denied, further complicating the matter.

The respondent, opposing the stay petitions, supported the Commissioner's reasoning and emphasized the importance of the Chartered Engineer's opinion in determining the correct valuation. The respondent pointed out that the NIDB data indicated higher values for identical goods imported at other ports, suggesting discrepancies in the appellant's declarations. However, during the personal hearing, the respondent did not push for cross-examination of the expert.

Upon reviewing the submissions and the impugned order, the Tribunal found that the Revenue's case heavily relied on the NIDB data and the opinion of the Chartered Engineer. The Tribunal highlighted the requirement for contemporaneous evidence in enhancing the value, emphasizing that minor differences between imported goods and contemporaneous imports render the evidence ineffective. Additionally, the Tribunal noted the absence of evidence to discard the transaction value, a prerequisite for enhancing the assessable value based on other evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the stay petitions unconditionally, as the appellant had presented a strong case in their favor at the prima facie stage.