9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 359 - AT - CustomsValuation - rejection of transaction value - contemporaneous import of similar goods at another port - Held that - nowhere the original adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) in their orders have been able to convincingly reject the transaction value declared by the appellants in their import documents. We find that the Revenue has not been able to convincingly prove that the contemporaneous imports quoted by the original adjudicating authority in the orders were of identical goods . The Revenue s contention that the Customs were justified in enhancing the value based on contemporaneous imports do not have any force when we find that the price quoted cannot be proved that they were of identical goods and when there was no evidence to justify the rejection of the invoice values declared by the appellants. Revenue is not able to prove any undervaluation or mis-declaration and thus able to convincingly reject the transaction value declared by the importer. - demand set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of transaction value by Customs. 2. Enhancement of value based on contemporaneous imports. 3. Application of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. 4. Legality of the enhancement of invoice values. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Rejection of Transaction Value by Customs The appellants presented original invoices, certificates of origin, and other relevant documents to support their declared transaction values. They argued that the transaction value should be accepted as per Rule 3(i) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of the Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988, unless exceptions in Rule 4(2) applied. The adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide convincing reasons to reject the declared transaction values, nor did they find any mis-declaration or excess payment beyond the invoice price. Issue 2: Enhancement of Value Based on Contemporaneous Imports The Revenue enhanced the value of the imported goods by comparing them with prices of similar goods imported at other ports. However, the appellants contended that the Customs could not reject transaction values based solely on such comparisons without proving that the goods were identical. The original adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) failed to exhaust the application of Rules 4 and 5 before proceeding to Rule 6, which mandates a sequential approach to valuation. Issue 3: Application of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 The Tribunal emphasized that the Customs Valuation Rules require a sequential approach from Rules 5 to 8 if the transaction value is rejected. The Revenue did not follow this procedure, and there was no evidence that the conditions for rejecting transaction value under Rule 4(2) were met. The Tribunal cited several precedents, including Eicher Tractors Ltd. vs. CC, Mumbai, which mandated accepting the transaction value unless specific exceptions applied. Issue 4: Legality of the Enhancement of Invoice Values The Tribunal found that the Revenue did not provide valid legal justification for enhancing the invoice values. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases like Chaudhary Ship Breakers vs. CC, Ahmedabad and Commissioner of Customs, Vishakhapatnam vs. Aggarwal Industries Ltd. had held that transaction values should be accepted unless exceptions in Rule 4(2) are proven. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's reasons for enhancement were not applicable to the facts of these appeals, and there was no evidence of undervaluation or mis-declaration by the appellants. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed all the appeals, stating that the Revenue failed to convincingly reject the transaction values declared by the appellants and did not follow the proper valuation rules. The enhancement of values based on contemporaneous imports was not legally justified, and the appellants were entitled to consequential relief.
|
