2015 (12) TMI 789 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Re-determination of value under Rule 8 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 - Import of yellow poppy seeds - Held that - If contemporaneous value of imports were available at US 900 PMT then re-determination of value should have been done either under Rule 4 or Rule 5 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, which has not been done and which clearly shows that department has not done the re-determination on the basis of value of on contemporaneous of imports. The very fact that re determination has been done under Rule 8 clearly shows that the basis for re-determination is not contemporaneous value of imports. A copy of the market inquiry report is available on record which we have perused. The said market inquiry report is not signed by anyone including the officer of the Customs and the representative of the respondent. Therefore, the same cannot be accepted as a valid piece of evidence. While conducting the market inquiry, a representative of the importer should have been co-opted. Thus the evidentiary value of the so-called market inquiry itself is suspect. Further, we note that the lower appellate authority while considering the valuation done by the assessing authority has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court and the Tribunal in similar circumstances and has come to the conclusion that the loading of value done by assessing authority is without any basis. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the said order - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal setting aside re-determination of value of imported goods
- Validity of re-determination under Rule 8 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988
- Contemporaneous value of imports and basis for re-determination
- Reliance on market inquiry report and its evidentiary value
- Consideration of previous judicial decisions in valuation

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI concerns the re-determination of the value of Yellow Poppy seeds imported by the respondent, which was set aside by the lower appellate authority. The Revenue contends that the re-determination under Rule 8 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, at US $900 per metric ton (CIF), was justified based on market inquiry evidence. The Revenue argues that the lower appellate authority erred in not considering the evidences supporting the re-determination and seeks to set aside the impugned order.

The Tribunal notes that the re-determination under Rule 8 should have been based on contemporaneous value of imports, which was not done in this case. The Tribunal highlights that the market inquiry report, which formed the basis for re-determination, lacked credibility as it was unsigned and did not involve the importer's representative. Additionally, the Tribunal observes that the lower appellate authority correctly relied on previous judicial decisions to conclude that the loading of value by the assessing authority was unfounded. Consequently, the Tribunal rejects the Revenue's appeal, upholding the lower appellate authority's decision to set aside the re-determination of value.

In summary, the Tribunal's analysis focused on the procedural aspects of re-determination under Rule 8, emphasizing the requirement for contemporaneous value consideration and the importance of credible evidence, such as signed market inquiry reports. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the lack of proper basis for re-determination and the reliance on established legal precedents in customs valuation matters.