2019 (4) TMI 1759 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - CR sheets in Coil Form (Non Alloy) Stock Lot - rejection of declared value - enhancement of declared value - the entire case of the Revenue is based upon the LME price which assessees are also disputing on the ground of that even LME price have not been adopted by the Revenue - HELD THAT - The Tribunal in the case of M/S SANJIVANI NON FERROUS TRADING PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, NOIDA 2017 (3) TMI 359 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD has held that the Revenue has to first reject the transaction value and has to establish the same as incorrect value by relying upon evidences. It stands held that only after transaction value stands rejected, the same can be re-determined by reference to any other evidences. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Dispute over assessable value of CR sheets in Coil Form (Non Alloy) Stock Lot imported by the appellant at Euro 344 PMT, Revenue's view on valuation based on LME prices, enhancement of price to Euro 514.20 PMT, rejection of transaction value by Revenue without proper evidence.

Analysis:

1. The dispute in the present appeal revolves around the assessable value of CR sheets in Coil Form (Non Alloy) Stock Lot imported by the appellant, which the appellant sought to clear at a transaction value of Euro 344 PMT. Initially, the Revenue had doubts about the goods' description, leading to a 100% examination. However, the goods were found to be correctly described, and the Revenue accepted the goods as stock-lot.

2. Subsequently, based on LME prices, the Revenue decided to enhance the valuation of the goods. This enhancement was initially made on the bill of entry but was later set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), who remanded the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority to provide LME prices to the assessee and pass a reasoned order.

3. In compliance, the Original Adjudicating Authority increased the price to Euro 514.20 PMT. This order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the present appeal by the appellant challenging the enhanced valuation.

4. The entire case of the Revenue was based on LME prices, which the appellant disputed, arguing that the Revenue did not adopt LME prices and that the calculation was not based on contemporaneous exports. The advocate for the appellant highlighted that the Revenue did not reject the transaction value declared by the importer with any contrary evidence.

5. The Tribunal referred to a previous case, M/s Sanjivani Non Ferrous Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, where it was held that the Revenue must first reject the transaction value and establish it as incorrect before re-determining the value using other evidence. This decision was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a subsequent appeal filed by the Revenue.

6. Applying the above legal principle to the present case, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, providing consequential relief.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD highlights the key issues, arguments, and legal principles involved in the dispute over the assessable value of imported goods and the application of LME prices in valuation.