2018 (7) TMI 1881 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - Prim Hot Roll Coils - enhancement of declared value - Held that - The imported goods namely HR Coils cannot be compared with HR Plates as has been done by both the lower authorities for enhancement of the declared transaction values. The learned Counsel for the appellant has also pointed out that at para 8.3 of the order-in-original were a table of contemporaneous import with description of goods etc. shows that in respect of HR Coils the lowest value declared was USD 385 PMT and the values declared by the appellant are higher than the said values - the rejection of transaction value and enhancement of the same by the lower authority is not legally sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported Prim Hot Roll Coils

Analysis:
1. Valuation Issue: The appeal concerns the valuation of Prim Hot Roll Coils imported by M/s.Arya Ship Breaking Corporation under filed Bills of Entry. The appellant challenged Order-in-Appeal No.106/MCH/AC/Gr.VIIC/2011 by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai, dated 12/04/2011. The appellant imported Prime HR Coils under three contracts supported by a Letter of Credit issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mumbai. The bills of entry were provisionally assessed, raising concerns about the classification of goods, importability, and declared value. The adjudicating authority confirmed the classification under CTH 72253090, no import license required, but doubted the declared value, enhancing it to USD 460 PMT from USD 400 and USD 410 PMT declared by the appellant. The appellate authority upheld the enhancement, leading to the current appeal.

2. Appellant's Argument: The appellant's counsel argued that the lower authorities erred in treating HR Coils and HR Plates as the same for value enhancement purposes. He emphasized the differences between the two goods and contended that the values used for enhancement were incorrect. The appellant's counsel also highlighted the lack of evidence regarding any additional consideration beyond the declared value. He supported his arguments with relevant legal decisions included in the appeal memorandum.

3. Revenue's Position: The counsel for the Revenue supported the impugned order, backing the value enhancement done by the lower authorities.

4. Tribunal's Decision: After reviewing the case, submissions, and relevant case laws, the Tribunal found that HR Coils should not have been equated with HR Plates for value enhancement. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the values declared by the appellant compared to contemporaneous imports. Additionally, the Revenue failed to prove any additional consideration beyond the declared value. Relying on appellant's legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the rejection of the declared value and its enhancement were not legally sustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any necessary consequential relief.

In summary, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the incorrect comparison of goods for value enhancement and the lack of evidence supporting the enhanced value. The decision highlights the importance of accurately assessing the declared value of imported goods and the necessity of providing substantial evidence for any value adjustments.