2015 (12) TMI 1436 - AT - Customs

Valuation of goods - enhancement in value of goods - Held that - Though in the adjudication order the authority has relied upon the price of contemporaneous goods, but no any evidence in support of contemporaneous import was adduced. The goods imported by the appellant is rags which admittedly a residual product. The residual product cannot be of standard quality. As regards its characteristics, quality, size, shape, colour etc. it various from consignment to consignment. - Since no evidence was produced by the Revenue, enhancement of the price of the impugned goods appears to be without any basis. It is a trite law that for applying the price of contemporaneous goods, it is necessary to ascertain that the goods is of same character, quality, quantity, country of origin etc. and without ascertaining the same, the adoption of price of contemporaneous goods cannot be treated as price of contemporaneous goods. Due to the said deficiency in the whole proceeding, we are of the considered view that there is no sufficient basis for revenue to enhance the value of imported goods - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal rejecting appeal in four imports and allowing in two cases.
2. Allegation of importing goods at lower price than prevailing international market price.
3. Appeal based on lack of show cause notice and denial of natural justice.
4. Disagreement on enhancement of value based on contemporaneous price.
5. Lack of evidence supporting contemporaneous import price.
6. Argument on the nature of imported goods being residual products.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal rejecting the appeal in four imports under certain Bills of Entry and allowing in two cases. The appellant imported rags at a price lower than the prevailing international market price, leading to provisional release pending inquiries. The Additional Commissioner ordered to enhance the value based on the prevailing international market price.

2. The appellant contested the original order, citing lack of issuance of a show cause notice and denial of natural justice. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) in Mumbai was allowed on these grounds. Subsequently, the revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals). In the subsequent proceedings, the appeal was allowed in two Bills of Entry and rejected in four, leading to the appellant's further appeal.

3. The appellant's counsel argued that the authorities enhanced the value based on contemporaneous prices without providing any supporting material. The revenue did not verify various aspects like quality, country of origin, and characteristics of the goods before applying the contemporaneous price. The appellant imported rags, a residual product with varying characteristics, making it challenging to ascertain uniform pricing without proper verification.

4. The Revenue, represented by A. C. (AR), reiterated the findings of the impugned order, supporting the enhancement of value based on contemporaneous prices.

5. The Tribunal observed that no evidence was presented by the Revenue to support the contemporaneous import price. Considering rags as residual products with non-standard quality and varying characteristics, the Tribunal found the enhancement without basis. It emphasized the need to verify the similarity in character, quality, quantity, and origin before adopting the price of contemporaneous goods.

6. Due to the lack of evidence supporting the enhancement and the nature of the imported goods as residual products with varying characteristics, the Tribunal concluded that there was insufficient basis for the Revenue to increase the value of the imported goods. Consequently, the impugned order was modified, and the appeal was allowed based on the lack of a proper foundation for the value enhancement.

← Previous Next →