2015 (12) TMI 647 - AT - Customs

Valuation of goods - Enhancement in value of goods - Held that - Revenue in their memo of appeal have neither produced any evidence to show that excess payment was made by the importer or has also not disputed the fact of contemporaneous bills of entries. They have simply gone to the arithmetical calculations of value starting from the cost of the raw material. We note that the goods were Stock Lot goods and as such the method adopted by the Revenue, based upon the cost construction basis, cannot be appreciated. As such, we find no infirmity in the view adopted by Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay petition filed by Revenue against non-executable order of Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Appeal regarding the enhancement of value of imported goods.
3. Lack of evidence provided by Revenue to support the enhancement of value.
4. Comparison with other bill of entries and legal precedents cited by Commissioner (Appeals).

Stay Petition:
The Revenue filed a stay petition against the non-executable order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Appellate Tribunal rejected the stay petition, stating that since a short point was involved, they proceeded to decide the appeal itself.

Enhancement of Value:
The case revolved around the enhancement of the value of imported Nylon Elastic Tape (stock lot) by the assessing officer. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that there was no reasoning provided by the assessing officer to justify the enhancement. The Commissioner noted the lack of evidence showing additional payment by the importer and referenced other bill of entries where identical goods were assessed at transaction value. Citing legal precedents, the Commissioner set aside the enhancement of value.

Lack of Evidence by Revenue:
The Revenue, in their appeal, failed to produce evidence showing excess payment by the importer or dispute the existence of contemporaneous bills of entries. Instead, they relied on arithmetical calculations based on the cost of raw material. The Tribunal found the Revenue's method inappropriate for stock lot goods and upheld the Commissioner's decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

Comparison and Legal Precedents:
The Commissioner compared the case with legal precedents, including a Supreme Court decision and a Tribunal decision, to support the decision to set aside the enhancement of value. The Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner's approach and rejected the Revenue's appeal, disposing of the stay petition as well.

This judgment highlights the importance of providing reasoning and evidence to support any enhancement of value in import cases. It also emphasizes the significance of legal precedents and the need for a thorough analysis of the facts and relevant data before making decisions in such matters.