2017 (3) TMI 1015 - AT - Customs

Valuation - accessories and batteries for mobile phones/ laptop - The Revenue entertained a view that two of the items (battery bank and car charger) were with brand name ROMOS‟ which was not declared and the classification and valuation of imported items were to be re-determined - appellant s case is that the imported goods were reassessed twice which is against the provisions of law - Held that - No discussion was found regarding the comparability of NIBD data both in quality, and quantity, level of transaction of comparable goods. It simply records that when there is evidence of higher contemporaneous import value of similar goods, it is difficult to accept the declared value - if the assessing officer is attributing reason that the brand goods will have additional value then the comparison should be with similar branded goods. We note that the NIBD data is for unbranded goods and that too for imports many months back from the date of present import or after many months of the said import. The contemporaneous value should be comparable in quality, volume, country of origin and many other parameters so that appropriate transaction value can be arrived at. We find no analyses of these issues either in the original order or in the first appellate order. Matter remitted for decision afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Reassessment of imported goods, violation of Rule 12 of Valuation Rules, rejection of transaction value, brand name significance in valuation, comparability of NIDB data, rejection of declared value, invoking Rule 12, arriving at transaction value under Rule 5.

Analysis:
1. The appellants challenged the reassessment of imported goods twice, arguing it violated the law. They contended that the second reassessment was improper as the goods had already been assessed and duty paid. Moreover, the reliance on non-contemporaneous Bills of Entry and selective NIDB data without considering contemporaneous values was questioned. The absence of a manufacturer's invoice for goods from China via Hong Kong was highlighted, emphasizing that the brand name "ROMOS" did not impact the value as they did not order branded goods. The appellant did not contest the confiscation or the valuation of the battery bank.

2. The lower authorities, as reiterated by the ld. AR, upheld the original order, emphasizing undervaluation and mis-declaration due to the absence of a manufacturer's invoice. The rejection of the declared value and the use of NIDB data for valuation were considered legally justified. However, the impugned order was criticized for lacking a comprehensive analysis of the issues raised, especially regarding the comparability of NIBD data and the reasons for rejecting the declared value.

3. The Tribunal found the impugned order deficient, echoing the concerns raised by the ld. Commissioner against the original authority's order. It noted the lack of detailed discussion on the comparability of NIBD data and the reasons for rejecting the declared value. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for clear findings on the application of Rule 12 and the determination of transaction value under Rule 5. It critiqued the inadequate reasoning provided for rejecting the declared value based solely on the absence of a manufacturer's invoice and the presence of a brand name on two goods.

4. While acknowledging the invocation of Rule 12 and Rule 5 by the lower authorities, the Tribunal found the reasoning insufficient. It emphasized that the rejection of declared value solely due to the absence of a manufacturer's invoice was unjustified. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of comparing contemporaneous values of similar goods and the need for a thorough analysis of various parameters for determining an appropriate transaction value. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, directing the original authority to address all issues raised by the appellant and provide a fair opportunity for presenting their case. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.