2018 (1) TMI 1472 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - declaration of lower value - Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 - reliance placed on NIDB data and also to the circular issued by the DGOV - Held that - Department had not invoked the provisions of Rule 12 of the Valuation Rules, for rejecting the declared value. Thus, in absence of rejection of declared value, the value declared by the appellant cannot be re-determined, by resorting to the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules - the Department has not produced any other evidence to reject the value declared by the appellant. The re-determination of value by the authorities below cannot be sustained and the value declared by the importer should be considered for the purpose of assessment of bill of entry and for payment of customs duty on such declared value - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Customs valuation - Rejection of declared value - Re-determination under Rule 5 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 - Reference to NIDB data and DGOV circular.

Analysis:
The case involved the import of Drawer Smoothers and Tubular Locks, with the appellant declaring an assessable value and customs duty liability in the Bill of Entry. The department disputed the declared value, re-determined it under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, and reassessed the duty based on a higher value of the imported consignment, supported by NIDB data and a circular issued by the DGOV.

The appellant's advocate argued that the department did not reject the declared value under Rule 12 of the Valuation Rules and therefore could not re-determine it under Rule 5. He contended that the DGOV circular and NIDB data could not override the Valuation Rules, citing precedents to support the argument. The advocate emphasized that without tangible evidence of improper declaration, the declared value should not be enhanced based on external data.

In response, the Revenue's representative reiterated the findings in the impugned order, supporting the re-determination of value by the department.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the department did not invoke Rule 12 to reject the declared value. In the absence of such rejection, the declared value could not be re-determined under Rule 5 without additional evidence. Since no other evidence was produced to justify rejecting the declared value, the Tribunal held that the re-determination by the authorities was not sustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision centered on the procedural aspect of customs valuation, emphasizing the importance of following the Valuation Rules and providing substantial evidence to support any re-determination of declared value. The case highlighted the significance of adherence to legal procedures and the requirement for concrete evidence in customs valuation disputes.