9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 551 - AT - CustomsRejection of transaction value - Held that - at the time of import, the appellant declared the value of goods @ US 535 PMT. The goods were examined and on examination the goods were found to be as declared in the Bill of Entry. These facts are not in dispute. There is no evidence shown by the department that over and above the transaction value any price has been paid by the appellant. The only basis for enhancement of value is that as per NIDB data in Bill of Entry No. 599780, dated 6-2-2007 the price shown was @ ₹ 42,793/- PMT. The price taken is of a Bill of Entry filed in February, 2007 whereas the impugned goods have been imported by the appellant in September, 2007 and October, 2007. Therefore, the price shown in a Bill of Entry of February, 2007 cannot be relied upon. Further, we find that the standing instructions issued in the year 1999 have been applied for imports made in the year 2007. We further find that there is no basis for giving 15% discount on PLATT price for the impugned goods. There is no evidence of any contemporaneous imports of similar or identical goods nor is there any price available for similar goods. In the absence of any such evidence, the transaction value has to be accepted - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues: Customs valuation based on PLATT price and discount; Application of standing order; Contemporaneous import price; Transaction value declaration.
Customs Valuation based on PLATT Price and Discount: The appellant imported EVA Resin, declared as off-grade goods. Adjudication rejected the transaction value, assessing the goods based on PLATT price with a 15% discount. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. The appellant challenged this valuation, arguing that the PLATT price basis was incorrect as no contemporaneous import price or similar goods price was available. The appellant contended that the goods should be assessed based on the transaction value declared in the Bill of Entry. The respondent argued that the PLATT price basis was valid, as per standing Order No. 7493/99, for off-grade plastic granules, and the 15% discount was appropriate to determine the assessable value. Application of Standing Order: The respondent relied on Standing Order No. 7493/99, dated 3-12-1999, to support the application of a 15% discount on PLATT price for off-grade plastic granules. The respondent contended that this discount was correctly applied by the adjudicating authority to benefit the appellant in determining the assessable value. However, the appellant argued that the discount was without basis and the PLATT price was not suitable due to the lack of contemporaneous import prices or similar goods prices. Contemporaneous Import Price: The appellant highlighted that no price was available for contemporaneous import of similar goods, and the PLATT price basis was unfounded. The appellant emphasized that the goods were not of prime quality, making reliance on PLATT price irrelevant. The appellant urged acceptance of the transaction value declared in the Bill of Entry as the correct basis for assessing the goods. Transaction Value Declaration: The Tribunal noted that at the time of import, the appellant declared the goods' value at US $535 PMT, which was found to be accurate upon examination. The Tribunal observed that no evidence showed any additional payment beyond the declared transaction value. The Tribunal criticized the reliance on NIDB data from a Bill of Entry filed in February 2007 for goods imported in September and October 2007. Moreover, the Tribunal found no basis for the 15% discount on PLATT price, emphasizing the lack of evidence for contemporaneous imports or similar goods prices. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the transaction value declared by the appellant in the Bill of Entry should be accepted as the correct value, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable due to the lack of evidence supporting the PLATT price basis and the 15% discount. Therefore, the transaction value declared by the appellant was deemed the correct value for the imported goods. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, based on the observations made.
|
