2017 (5) TMI 738 - AT - Customs

Valuation - loading of value of imported goods - Revenue claimed that the goods imported by the appellant needs to be valued by loading the same by 153.50% for the purpose of assessment under Rule 4(3) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 on the ground that the importer-appellant having cross holding of shares with the exporter of the goods - Held that - both the appeals, filed by the appellant-importer as well as by the Revenue, are shorn of any facts - the adjudicating authority has clearly recorded that there was a licence agreement between the importer-appellant and the supplier in respect of textile machinery, designs and patents, electric sample cutting and pinking machine polytex type etc., but there is no finding as to whether the appellant has imported the designs or machine itself or the products themselves - appeal allowed - decided in favor of importer.

Summary

Issues involved: Valuation of imported goods under Customs Valuation Rules, 1988

Analysis:
1. Valuation of goods: The judgment deals with two appeals filed by the importer-appellant and the Revenue regarding the valuation of goods imported by the appellant. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs had determined that the goods needed to be valued by loading them by 153.50% due to the importer-appellant's cross holding of shares with the exporter. The first appellate authority upheld this decision, leading to appeals from both parties.

2. Lack of details: The Tribunal noted a lack of specifics regarding the imported goods in the records. The order-in-original and the impugned order did not specify the nature of the goods imported or their declared value. The absence of crucial details hindered the Tribunal's ability to determine whether the goods fell under the category requiring a value loading. The Tribunal highlighted the ambiguity surrounding whether the appellant imported designs, machinery, or products themselves, emphasizing the importance of clarity in such cases.

3. Decision: After considering the submissions and the records, the Tribunal found that both appeals were deficient in factual information. Due to the lack of essential details, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the importer, allowing their appeal, while rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The cross objection was also disposed of accordingly.

This judgment underscores the significance of providing comprehensive information and clarity in customs valuation cases to facilitate accurate decision-making and uphold fairness in import assessments.