2014 (1) TMI 222 - Commissioner - Customs

Valuation of goods - Enhancement in value - Demand of differential duty - Mis declaration of goods - Held that - The value has been ascertained on the basis of the contemporary imports of similar goods, its also observed that lower value i.e. 460 USD PMT shown in NIDB data, was considered as basis. It seems there is no justification or the reasons given in respect of the grade of the impugned goods and country of origin - contemporary reports relied upon by the departments does not match as regards to the country of origin and the grade of the impugned goods. Thus the comparison cannot be defined as an identical or similar goods as defined in Rule 2 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 - Perusal of NIDB data revealed that there is no consignment imported from Finland and having the same grade of the impugned goods, hence, comparison with identical or similar goods cannot stand - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Determination of transaction value under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.
3. Comparison of imported goods with contemporaneous imports for valuation purposes.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported HR Alloy goods and was assessed provisionally, but the Adjudicating Authority found that the goods contained 'BORON' more than 0.008% and classified them as Alloy Steel under Chapter 72. The Authority demanded differential duty due to undervaluation, leading to an appeal by the appellant against the Order-in-Original.

2. The appellant argued that the goods were not identical as per Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, citing differences in country of origin and grade. They contended that the valuation was arbitrary and that the transaction value should be accepted based on the actual price paid. The appellant highlighted a credit facility of 180 days as a reason for not submitting the final payment, invoking precedents to support their case.

3. The Adjudicating Authority redetermined the value of the goods based on contemporary imports, using a lower value from NIDB data. However, the Commissioner found discrepancies in the comparison, noting that the reports did not match regarding the country of origin and grade of the goods. The Commissioner agreed with the appellant's contention that no identical or similar goods were found in the NIDB data, leading to the setting aside of the Order-in-Original and acceptance of the transaction value. The appeal was allowed, providing relief to the appellant, and the matter was disposed of accordingly.