2015 (5) TMI 17 - AT - Customs

Valuation of goods - Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the loading done by Revenue, on the ground that contemporaneous prices of other importers are available - Held that - Clearly the contemporaneous imports from the same supplier bearing the same description of goods as in the case of the respondent and also the fact that the show cause notice clearly says that the common supplier in all cases manufactures only Retro Reflective Self Adhesive Paper indicates that the goods imported under all the six bills of entries pertaining to the respondent as well as to the other contemporaneous importers are the same. - contemporaneous import prices in the case of the other importers have not been challenged by Revenue, there appears to be no ground for granting stay of the order of Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported goods based on contemporaneous imports, mis-description of goods, rejection of loading by Revenue, challenge against Order-in-Appeal.

In this case, the Revenue appealed against the Order-in-Appeal where the Commissioner rejected the valuation of imported goods based on contemporaneous imports. The imported goods were initially assessed by loading prices according to contemporaneous imports of other parties. However, after a test report, the assessable value was determined through market inquiry and deductive method under Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules. The Commissioner rejected the loading done by Revenue, stating that contemporaneous prices of other importers were available. The Revenue argued that the goods were mis-described and undervalued, as they were reflective adhesive paper. The Ld. Counsel for the respondents pointed out that the supplier only manufactures retro reflective adhesive paper, and other importers also described the goods similarly. The Tribunal found that no re-opening of assessment was done for other importers who described goods similarly and imported from the same supplier. The goods matched the description under the Tariff Item, and since the import prices of other importers were not challenged by Revenue, the Tribunal rejected the stay applications against the Commissioner's order.

The issues in this case revolved around the valuation of imported goods, mis-description of goods, and the challenge against the Order-in-Appeal. The Tribunal analyzed the facts, including the assessment based on contemporaneous imports, the rejection of loading by Revenue, and the mis-description of goods as reflective adhesive paper. The Tribunal considered the consistency in descriptions among importers and the fact that the supplier only manufactured retro reflective adhesive paper. The Tribunal concluded that since the import prices of other importers were not challenged, there was no ground for granting a stay against the Commissioner's order. This case highlights the importance of accurate description and valuation of imported goods, as well as the significance of consistent treatment among importers to avoid undervaluation or misinterpretation issues.