2018 (3) TMI 2029 - AT - Customs

Enhancement of the value - Violated the import rules regarding Tinplate Defective/Secondary Misprinted Sheets/Uncoated Coils - HELD THAT - From the record, it also appears that the assessing officer has rejected the transaction value without any valid reasons and without new procedure as per Section 14 and Valuation Rules especially, there is nothing on record that the appellant has imported the secondary items but the value was considered for the fresh items. No speaking order was passed for enhancement of the value. There is nothing on record to suggest that the buyers and sellers of the goods are related persons. Therefore, the enhancement of the value is likely to be struck down and rightly struck down by the Commr. (Appeals). Hence, We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the same is hereby upheld - In the result, all the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Department's appeal against value enhancement of imported goods.

Analysis:
The Tribunal heard the appeal filed by the Department against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the reassessment and value enhancement of imported Tinplate Defective/Secondary Misprinted Sheets/Uncoated Coils. The Department contended that the value declared by the respondents was unsatisfactory, leading to re-assessment and value enhancement. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the declared value, stating that the imported items were Defective/Secondary Misprinted Sheets, and value enhancement should apply to new sheets only. The Department, aggrieved by this decision, appealed to the Tribunal.

The respondents argued before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the value enhancement was arbitrary and illegal, violating the Customs Act and Valuation Rules. They emphasized that unless there is additional consideration or exceptions under Rule 3(2), the transaction value cannot be rejected. They also highlighted the importance of a speaking order as per Section 17(5) of the Customs Act and the acceptance of the AFTA Certificate for notification benefits. Additionally, they referenced cases where the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected assessments based on DRI letters and contemporaneous imports, supporting their stance with legal precedents.

The Tribunal noted that the assessing officer rejected the transaction value without valid reasons or a new procedure under Section 14 and Valuation Rules. There was no evidence to suggest that the imported items were secondary, and no speaking order was issued for the value enhancement. The Tribunal found no indication of related parties in the transactions, leading to the conclusion that the value enhancement was unjustified and rightly overturned by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed all appeals filed by the Department. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, affirming the reasoning provided therein.