2013 (12) TMI 1090 - AT - Customs

Valuation of goods - Rejection of transactional value - Held that - there is no reference to contemporaneous higher prices of identical goods. Reference is placed only on NIDB data which cannot be made basis for enhancing the value in the absence of positive evidence showing transaction value to be incorrect. Further Revenue s stand that the importer failed to submit manufacturer s invoice or manufacturer s price list, by itself cannot be held to be a ground for enhancing the value unless the evidence to the contrary is shown - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Dispute over the value of imported goods declared in the bill of entry.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI involved a dispute over the value of imported goods declared in the bill of entry. The Revenue had filed appeals against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), challenging the enhancement of value by the assessing officer. The Commissioner (Appeals) had ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that there was no reason to reject the transaction value or enhance the value without clear and cogent evidence. The Commissioner relied on a Supreme Court decision and emphasized the importance of evidence regarding quantity, quality, country of origin, and time of import. As the Revenue failed to provide such evidence, the Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by the respondents, leading to the present appeals by the Revenue.

Upon reviewing the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal noted the absence of reference to contemporaneous higher prices of identical goods. The Revenue relied solely on NIDB data, which was deemed insufficient to justify enhancing the value without concrete evidence proving the transaction value was incorrect. Additionally, the Revenue's argument that the importer did not submit the manufacturer's invoice or price list was considered inadequate grounds for value enhancement without contradicting evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal found no valid reason to overturn the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision and rejected the Revenue's appeals. The judgment was pronounced in open court by Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ.