2018 (3) TMI 1792 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - rejection of declared value on the ground that the bills of entry that were relied upon in the impugned order related to imports of subsequent months - enhancement of value - HELD THAT - It is observed from the records that notice under Rule 10A of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 for rejection of value had been issued to the importer on 7th November, 2007 and in the absence of any response, the re-determination was proceeded with. This is not controverted by Learned Consultant. The proper officer cannot be faulted for rejection of the declared value arising from failures despite the notice proposing such rejection. For re-determination of assessable value, the original authority resorted to Rule 8 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 after ascertaining that the rules preceding are not applicable. The grounds of appeal do not evidence any material to controvert recourse to Rule 8 and merely contested the rejection of declared value. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of the value of imported goods based on declared value versus re-determination by the customs authority.
2. Application of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 for assessing the value of imported goods.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal by M/s. Rajasthan Glass House against the finalization of the assessable value of imported clear float glass sheets. The appellant had imported five consignments with varying dimensions between November 2006 and January 2007. The National Input Data Base indicated values ranging from &8377; 24.65 to &8377; 43.85 per sq. mtr, but the goods were provisionally assessed at &8377; 45.00 per sq. mtr. The final assessable value was determined as &8377; 29.00 per sq. mtr, which was upheld by the impugned order. The appellant contested the enhancement of value and challenged the rejection of the declared value, arguing that the bills of entry relied upon were for subsequent months.

2. The Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 were applied in the re-determination of the assessable value. The customs authority issued a notice under Rule 10A for rejection of value, but the importer did not respond, leading to the re-determination process. The rejection of the declared value was based on failures to respond to the notice proposing such rejection. The original authority resorted to Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules after confirming that preceding rules were not applicable. The grounds of appeal did not provide any material to challenge the use of Rule 8, only contesting the rejection of declared value. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.