2017 (2) TMI 1024 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - loading of goods based on contemporaneous import - Held that - appellant has not produced any evidence for loading of the value on their consignment which is contradictory to the actual position as the value was loaded by the group on the basis of the investigation carried out by the SIIB unit of this Custom House which shows that after throught investigation and on the basis of contemporaneous invoices available in the said SIIB unit they prepared the chart of the said item thickness-wise and forwarded the same to the concerned group with the direction to load the value on the basis of the chart prepared and evidence available with them in their file - the appellant had not visited the matter on merits as is evident from the grounds of appeal. We do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order - appeal rejected - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported goods

Analysis:
The appeal was against an order dated 31.05.2006 regarding the valuation of goods imported by the appellant. Despite the absence of the appellant, the Tribunal proceeded with the case. The lower authorities had loaded the value of the goods, and the appellant paid the Customs duty accordingly. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not raise any objection or protest before paying the excess duty. The first appellate authority found that the appellant had not contested the matter on merits and had failed to provide any valid grounds for appeal. The authority upheld the original assessment as legal and correct, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant had not presented any substantial case for challenging the valuation of the imported goods. The appellant's failure to object or protest at the time of clearance, coupled with the absence of valid grounds for appeal, led to the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal concurred with the first appellate authority's decision to uphold the original assessment as proper and lawful. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, and the original order stood.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the valuation of the imported goods as determined by the lower authorities. The appellant's lack of objection or protest at the time of clearance and failure to provide convincing grounds for appeal resulted in the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal affirmed the legality and correctness of the original assessment, leading to the rejection of the appellant's appeal.