2014 (1) TMI 1168 - AT - Customs

Valuation of goods - Commssioner accepted higher value - Held that - Import was made in October, 2007 from China and the value is not accepted by them and the same was enhanced. Now the Revenue is relying on the imports made during the period 10-4-2007 to 10-5-2007. There is no evidence to show that the goods are of the same quantity, quality. In view of this, we do not want to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - Following decision of M/s. Eicher Tractors Limited 2000 (11) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Acceptance of declared value by the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejection of enhanced value for imported goods.
2. Reliance on imports made during a different period at a higher value by the Revenue to challenge the accepted value.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the appeal filed by the Revenue against the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision accepting the value declared by the respondents for imported goods and setting aside the enhanced value. The Commissioner (Appeals) based the decision on the well-established legal principle that transaction value cannot be rejected without clear and cogent evidence regarding quantity, quality, country of origin, and time of import. The department failed to provide any evidence to rebut the transaction value, did not cite any special relationship between the importer and supplier, and did not follow the Valuation Rules for rejecting the transaction value. The judgment emphasized the necessity for the Customs to accept the invoice value in the absence of specific exceptions outlined in the Customs Valuation Rules and the absence of clear evidence contradicting the transaction value.

2. The Revenue attempted to challenge the accepted value by relying on imports made during a different period at a higher value. However, the judgment highlighted that there was no evidence presented to establish the equivalence in quantity and quality between the goods imported during the two different periods. As a result, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, ultimately dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the judgment reaffirms the importance of adhering to established legal principles and providing substantial evidence when challenging declared values for imported goods. It underscores the necessity for the Customs department to follow the Valuation Rules and present clear and cogent evidence to reject transaction values. The decision also emphasizes the significance of demonstrating equivalency in quantity and quality when relying on imports from different periods to challenge accepted values.