Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 173 - AT - CustomsValuation declared value accepted as transaction value - Rule 3(3)(b) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 Helukabel products rejection of transaction value due to fluctuating prices of the goods prices of similar/identical products - Held that - the order dated 16.1.2008 was passed essentially on the ground that the importer was able to establish that the contemporaneous imports were at a price lower than the transaction value in their case. The order dated 9.2.2011 has been passed without going into the contemporaneous imports of the material time i.e. 2010. It is apparent from the order that no such data was submitted by the appellant or examined by the Assistant Commissioner. The letter dated 02.01.2008 from the foreign supplier, itself admits to the fact that the prices are fluctuating as per the international copper rates - the contemporaneous import prices of identical/similar goods to be considered before accepting the transaction value under Rule 3(3)(b) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007- matter remanded to original authority appeal disposed off.
Issues Involved: Valuation of imported goods under Customs Valuation Rules, 2007
Analysis: Issue 1: Valuation of imported goods under Rule 3(3)(b) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 The case involved M/s Helukabel India Pvt. Ltd., a subsidiary of Helukabel GmbH (Germany), importing goods based on a Distribution Agreement with the parent company. The Revenue initially accepted the declared value as the transaction value under Rule 3(3)(b) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The Commissioner of Customs (Import) also upheld this decision in review proceedings. However, a subsequent review in 2010 reiterated the acceptance of the transaction value without considering contemporaneous imports. The Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted the importance of examining contemporaneous import prices before accepting the transaction value. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's observation valid and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive assessment based on contemporaneous import data. Issue 2: Challenge to the order before Commissioner (Appeals) The Revenue challenged the order accepting the transaction value before the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the decision and allowed the departmental appeal. The appellant contended that there was no change in practice and cited third-party invoices to support their claim of importing at a higher price than contemporaneous rates. The Tribunal noted that the order accepting the transaction value in 2011 lacked an analysis of contemporaneous imports for that period. The Commissioner (Appeals) rightly emphasized the fluctuating nature of prices and the necessity to consider contemporaneous import prices before determining the transaction value under Rule 3(3)(b) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal and remanded the matter for a fresh assessment by the original adjudicating authority. In conclusion, the judgment delves into the nuances of valuing imported goods under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, emphasizing the significance of considering contemporaneous import prices for determining the transaction value. The case underscores the need for a thorough evaluation based on relevant data to ensure accurate valuation and compliance with customs regulations.
|