2014 (3) TMI 458 - AT - Customs

Rejection of the transaction value - Rule 12 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 2007 - Enhancement of transactional value - Held that - although the transaction value has been rejected but loading of the value has not been on the basis of contemporaneous import. The loading has been done on the basis of NTN pricelist by offering discount of 35%. As per the invoice, transaction value has been declared by different description, size and quantity of the impugned goods shown in the invoice and no comparable price of the said goods had been brought on record by the adjudicating authority. Without having NIDB data and the value of contemporaneous import, enhancement of value is not sustainable. Therefore, the case law relied upon by the learned A.R. are not relevant to the facts of this case as no contemporaneous imports are available for the impugned goods. Therefore, the value addition made on the transaction value as declared by the appellants is not justified - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against enhanced value of imported goods
- Application of Customs (Valuation) Rules, 2007
- Rejection of declared transaction value
- Requirement of manufacturer's invoice
- Justification for value enhancement
- Comparison with contemporaneous imports

Analysis:

The case involved an appeal against an order where the value of imported goods, specifically Ball Bearings, was increased by the lower authorities. The appellant imported goods described as Taper Roller Bearings and Ball Bearings from Japan and Russia, invoiced from France. The dispute arose when the adjudicating authority enhanced the value of the goods based on the NTN pricelist without following Rule 12 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 2007. The appellant contended that the rejection of the declared transaction value was unjustified and the procedure under Rule 12 should have been adhered to.

The appellant argued that the authorities should have followed Rule 12 before rejecting the transaction value and enhancing the value of the imported goods. They cited various case laws to support their contention. On the other hand, the Respondent, Addl. Commissioner, argued that the transaction value declared by the appellant was unreasonably low and lacked supporting documentation like manufacturer's invoice. The Respondent justified the value enhancement based on the NTN pricelist, emphasizing the discrepancy between the declared value and the actual value of the goods.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the appellants had imported goods of Japanese and Russian origin without being asked to produce the manufacturer's invoice during assessment. The Tribunal noted that the value enhancement was solely based on the NTN pricelist without considering contemporaneous imports or following Rule 12 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 2007. The Tribunal concluded that the rejection of the transaction value was not justified as no comparable price of the goods had been presented, and the value addition was not based on contemporaneous import data.

In the final judgment, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following proper procedures under the Customs (Valuation) Rules and considering relevant factors like contemporaneous imports when determining the value of imported goods.