2016 (8) TMI 829 - AT - Customs

Correctness of enhancement of value of imported goods import of polyester knitted fabrics - no evidence or allegation regarding the bonafideness of the import transaction or the invoices submitted by the respondent Held that - it has been repeatedly held by this Tribunal as well as Hon ble High Courts that the transaction value cannot be rejected mechanically based on suspicion or general alert without supporting evidence to the effect that the invoice value does not reflect the transaction value required for assessment. Here, no evidence of any nature has been brought out or discussed before such enhancement. Even contemporaneous value of similar or identical goods have not been examined and discussed no merit in Revenue s appeal - appeal dismissed decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Correctness of enhancement of value for imported goods.
2. Whether the importer's acceptance of enhanced value at the time of clearance affects their right to appeal.
3. Rejection of transaction value based on a general alert without supporting evidence.

Analysis:
1. The case involved two appeals by Revenue against a common order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) regarding the enhancement of value of imported polyester knitted fabrics. The Department assessed the goods at a higher value based on a general alert by DRI in 2011. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the enhancement, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessments were based solely on the DRI alert without evidence challenging the import transaction's bonafideness. The Tribunal held that the importer's acceptance of the enhanced value at the time of clearance did not waive their right to appeal under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.

2. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the importer's acceptance of the enhanced value at the time of clearance precluded them from appealing the assessment. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no legal basis to exclude the importer's right to appeal, especially when the assessments were initially provisional. The Tribunal highlighted that a speaking order was passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 17, providing a detailed discussion on the enhancement of assessable value. The Tribunal differentiated this case from a previous decision where the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order based on acceptance by a Clearing House Agent (CHA). The Tribunal concluded that the importer had the right to appeal the assessment despite initially accepting the enhanced value.

3. Regarding the rejection of the transaction value based solely on the DRI alert without supporting evidence, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeals. The Tribunal noted that the Original Authority did not provide detailed reasons for rejecting the transaction value and relied heavily on the DRI alert. The Tribunal reiterated the principle that transaction value cannot be rejected mechanically based on suspicion or general alerts without supporting evidence. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence or examination of contemporaneous values of similar goods to justify the enhancement. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to set aside the enhancement of value based on the DRI alert.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to set aside the enhancement of value for the imported goods. The judgment clarified the importer's right to appeal despite accepting the enhanced value at the time of clearance and emphasized the necessity of supporting evidence to reject transaction value based on general alerts.