2017 (2) TMI 138 - AT - Customs

Valuation - rejection of declared value on the ground that there being contemporaneous imports of the same products from the same supplier during the relevant period - whether the lower authorities were correct in enhancing the value of EUDRAGIT-l 30d-55 (Methacynic Acid Co-Polymer) from EURO 5.65 per Kg. (CIF) to EURO 8.95 per Kg? - Held that - there is definitely substantial difference in the quantity imported by the appellant and another importer. The sheer quantity advantage that appellant has on import of such chemicals could have also influenced the price as the quantity of 480 Kgs. imported by another importer being 25% of quantity imported the same supplier could have charged more. The adjudicating authority has not brought on record the correct facts of the contemporaneous imports, hence in our view, rejection of declaration price herein needs to be set aside. The declared price has to be accepted - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Enhancement of value of imported goods based on contemporaneous imports.

Analysis:
The appeal in this case was against an Order-in-Appeal dated 18th August 2006, where the issue for consideration was the enhancement of the value of imported goods from EURO 5.65 per Kg. to EURO 8.95 per Kg. The lower authorities had rejected the declared price of EURO 5.65 per Kg. due to contemporaneous imports of the same products from the same supplier during the relevant period.

The appellant argued that the lower authorities did not provide documents related to the contemporaneous imports value applied and relied on online printouts from NIDB records. The appellant contended that the quantity imported by the contemporaneous Bill of Entry was 480 Kgs, which was only 25% of the quantity imported by them.

The Departmental Representative supported the order, stating that identical goods were imported by another importer, and the contemporaneous imports details were used for enhancing the value. However, the Tribunal found that while applying contemporaneous value, the country of origin, quantity, and time of imports should align. In this case, the quantity difference between the appellant and the other importer was substantial, with the appellant importing 2160 Kgs compared to 480 Kgs by the other importer. This quantity advantage could have influenced the price, leading to the rejection of the declared price being set aside.

After careful consideration, the Tribunal concluded that the declared price should be accepted, and the impugned orders were set aside, allowing the appeal. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, with the decision pronounced in court on 24.01.2017.