2017 (4) TMI 260 - AT - Customs

Valuation - apple juice concentrate - documentary evidence of contemporaneous import not furnished - Held that - to assign cogent reasons for disallowance of the declared value, for the purposes of computation of customs duty, by resort to rule 10A(1) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. This we find to be lacking except for an observation that there appeared to be a contemporaneous import at a different port at a higher price - there is a gross contravention of the principles of natural justice, as the appellant were denied access to the document of contemporaneous import - the rejection the declared value has not followed the prescription of natural justice and that the enhancement thereon is not in accord with law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Claim of authenticity of the value declared in the bill of entry for import of apple juice concentrate; Failure to provide documentary evidence of contemporaneous import relied upon for re-assessment; Application of Customs Valuation Rules; Denial of access to documents of contemporaneous import; Compliance with principles of natural justice in the assessment process.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this appeal was the claim of authenticity of the value declared by the appellant in the bill of entry for the import of apple juice concentrate. The appellant contended that the imported concentrate was an input for manufacturing blended juice, necessitating competitive pricing. The lower authorities failed to provide documentary evidence of contemporaneous import relied upon for re-assessment, leading to a dispute over the declared value.

2. The original authority rejected the declared value per metric ton and adopted a higher value based on a different bill of entry. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs upheld this decision, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Punjab Processors Private Limited case, which empowered customs authorities to rely on contemporaneous imports to reject declared prices. The appellant challenged this decision, highlighting the Supreme Court's judgment in Eicher Tractors Ltd case regarding the sequential application of valuation rules.

3. The Tribunal emphasized the requirement for the assessing authority to provide cogent reasons for rejecting the declared value before resorting to other valuation rules. The absence of such reasons in the assessment process was noted, indicating a lack of compliance with the Customs Valuation Rules. The Tribunal also addressed the denial of access to documents of contemporaneous import, emphasizing the importance of natural justice in the assessment process.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the rejection of the declared value did not meet the standards of natural justice and that the subsequent enhancement was not in accordance with the law. Citing precedents and legal principles, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, underscoring the importance of procedural fairness and compliance with valuation rules in customs assessments.