2016 (12) TMI 1028 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - Pistachio - Rule 8 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 - enhancement of value on the basis of contemporaneous import - Held that - The fact that the price of US 4.8 per kg is of the Pistachio crop of Nov - Dec, 1999, whereas the appellant s import of Pistachio is from the crop of 1998 at US 3.6 per kg. which is vital fact which should have been considered by the lower authorities - in case of agriculture produce, quality of the goods varies from one of the crop to another particularly edible agriculture produce by lapse of time the product get deteriorated and obviously the price of old stock of agriculture produce will not be equal to the fresh stock of agriculture produce - the comparison with the price of the different goods of different period cannot be held correct - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Valuation of imported Pistachio under Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 - Invocation of Rule 5 and Rule 8 - Scope of show cause notice - Comparison of prices of contemporaneous imports - Consideration of crop year difference in valuation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Valuation of Imported Pistachio under Customs Valuation Rules, 1988:
The common issue in the appeals revolved around the valuation of imported Pistachio. The appellant declared the price at US$ 3.6 per kg, while the department proposed an enhancement to US$ 4.8 per kg based on contemporaneous imports. The adjudicating authority enhanced the value invoking Rule 5 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The Commissioner(Appeals) later determined the value under Rule 8, which was beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The Tribunal, in the first round of litigation, remanded the matter for a fresh show cause notice, emphasizing that the order cannot exceed the proposal in the notice.

2. Invocation of Rule 5 and Rule 8 - Scope of Show Cause Notice:
In the subsequent round of litigation, a fresh show cause notice was issued invoking Rule 5 for enhancement of value, and the demand was confirmed under the same rule. However, the Commissioner(Appeals) erred by confirming the valuation under Rule 8, deviating from the scope of the notice and adjudication order. The Tribunal noted that the price difference was based on contemporaneous imports of Pistachio from Nov-Dec 1999, whereas the appellant imported from the 1998 crop. The quality variation between crops was crucial, as the quality of agricultural produce deteriorates over time, affecting pricing.

3. Comparison of Prices of Contemporaneous Imports - Crop Year Difference in Valuation:
The appellant argued that the price of the old crop would naturally be lower than the new crop due to quality differences over time. The department's reliance on contemporaneous imports without evidence of undervaluation or suppression of value was deemed incorrect. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering crop year differences in valuation, especially for agricultural produce. Without evidence of undervaluation, comparing prices of different crop periods was deemed unsustainable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals. The judgment highlighted the necessity of adhering to the scope of show cause notices, considering crop year differences in valuation, and requiring evidence of undervaluation before comparing prices of contemporaneous imports. The decision underscored the importance of factual accuracy and legal compliance in customs valuation disputes.

(Order pronounced in court on 28-11-2016)