2014 (4) TMI 583 - AT - Customs

Valuation - Payment on Differential import duty Duty on white poppy seeds - Held that - To determine the value of goods under importation the methods prescribed and the procedures set out in the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 have to be followed strictly Here, no such exercise has been undertaken by the Customs authorities - They have straightaway adopted the value given in the public ledger which is not a prescribed method of valuation under the Valuation Rules Relying upon ARUSHI EXPORTS & OTHERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, (IMPORT), MUMBAI 2013 (11) TMI 38 - CESTAT MUMBAI The matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for determination of the value of the goods imported by the appellant in accordance with the methods and procedures set out in CVR, 2007 - Appeal is allowed - The stay petition is also disposed of Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal directing deposit of confirmed demand.
2. Rejection of stay request due to non-submission of stay application.
3. Valuation of imported goods based on public ledger without following Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.

Analysis:
1. The appeal and stay petition challenged the Order-in-Appeal directing M/s. Wadhwani Commodities Trading Pvt. Ltd. to deposit the demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority for white poppy seeds import. The lower appellate authority rejected the stay request citing the absence of a formal application. However, the Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal without pre-deposit, considering the narrow issue at hand.

2. The Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 prescribe a sequential process from Rules 5 to 9 for determining the value of imported goods. In this case, the assessing authority based the value enhancement solely on the public ledger without analyzing contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods. The Tribunal noted that this approach deviated from the prescribed valuation methods, leading to a remand decision similar to a previous case involving M/s. Arushi Exports. The Tribunal directed a reevaluation by the adjudicating authority in compliance with the CVR 2007, allowing the appellant to present evidence supporting their declared value.

3. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the matter for proper valuation determination in accordance with the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The stay petition was also disposed of, rendering the application for early hearing moot. The decision emphasized adherence to prescribed valuation procedures and the appellant's right to a fair hearing and evidence presentation during the reassessment process.