2018 (7) TMI 2142 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - consignment of pre-workout Food Supplements from Dubai - rejection of declared value - enhancement of value based upon NIDB data - HELD THAT - Revenue in their Memo of Appeal has not disputed the transaction value and has not adduced any evidence to show that the price paid for the consignment of imported goods was more than the transaction value. It is well settled law that enhancement cannot be done based upon the NIDB data, unless the transaction value is proved to be incorrect. Inasmuch as there is no evidence for rejection of the transaction value, we find no reasons to interfere in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of declared value by the Assessing Officer based on NIDB data
2. Interpretation of the provisions for assessment of imported goods for Customs duty
3. Applicability of Rule 4(2) exceptions in determining transaction value
4. Dispute over transaction value and lack of evidence for enhancement based on NIDB data

Analysis:
1. The case involved the rejection of the declared value of imported pre-workout Food Supplements from Dubai by the Assessing Officer, who enhanced the value based on NIDB data. The appellant challenged this decision, leading to the appeal.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Eicher Tractors Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321, which outlined the provisions for assessing imported goods for Customs duty. It was emphasized that the Department must assess duty based on transaction value unless specific exceptions under Rule 4(2)(c) to (h) apply.

3. The Appellate Authority, referencing the above decision, noted that the appellant did not mis-declare the price paid or mis-describe the imported goods. It was highlighted that the rejection of transaction value solely based on NIDB data without evidence of incorrect value was erroneous. The Specified Officer's reliance on Zauba.Com data with different descriptions and quantities was deemed unjustified.

4. The Revenue did not dispute the transaction value or provide evidence that the price paid for the imported goods exceeded the declared value. The Tribunal emphasized that enhancement based on NIDB data is impermissible without proving the inaccuracy of the transaction value. As no evidence supported the rejection of the transaction value, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues surrounding the rejection of declared value, the interpretation of Customs duty assessment provisions, the significance of Rule 4(2) exceptions, and the necessity of evidence to support enhancement based on external data sources like NIDB.