2017 (6) TMI 144 - AT - Customs

Valuation - rejection of declared price - allowance of discount - loading the assessable value on the basis of other brand of goods - Held that - in the appellant s own case, M/s. K.R.Srilaxmi Deals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata 2016 (9) TMI 1119 - CESTAT KOLKATA , the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, where it was held that loading the assessable value on the basis of other brand of goods not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Valuation of imported ling-long brand truck tyres, application of Customs Valuation Rules, comparability of goods, contemporaneous evidence for valuation, relevance of quantity and brand name in valuation.

Analysis:
The case involves the valuation of imported ling-long brand truck tyres by the appellants. The Revenue proposed to reject the declared price, leading to the Adjudicating Authority determining the value at US $ 84.20 per set. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) later decided that a discount of 12% should be made. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in a related case involving M/s. K.R.Srilaxmi Deals Pvt. Ltd. where the issue of correctly loading the assessable value of Chinese origin tyres was discussed. The Customs Valuation Rules definitions of 'identical goods' and 'similar goods' were crucial in this analysis. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of physical characteristics, quality, and reputation in determining comparability. The Tribunal also emphasized the significance of contemporaneous imports and the need for evidence to support valuation decisions.

In the case of M/s. Deekay Exports Vs. C.C. Calcutta, the Tribunal held that the quantity of imports and contemporaneous nature of transactions play a vital role in valuation. Additionally, the judgment in C.C. Mumbai Vs. Mahalaxmi Gems emphasized the acceptance of transaction value unless proven otherwise by contemporaneous evidence. The case of C.C. New Delhi Vs. D.M. International further stressed the relevance of quality, origin, and time of import in valuation decisions. Similarly, the case of Buying Overseas Vs. CC, Mumbai highlighted the importance of the quantity of identical/similar goods in rejecting transaction value based on contemporary imports.

The Tribunal found that the quantity of tyres imported by the appellant exceeded the quantity in the relied-upon bill of entry, and other independent importers in Delhi had imported Chinese origin tyres at lower values. The brand name of the tyres imported by the appellant was 'Linglong,' while the brand in the relied-upon Bill of Entry was 'Westride.' The lack of evidence regarding the similarity of these brands was a crucial factor in the Tribunal's decision. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant based on the observations made and settled legal principles, providing consequential relief as necessary.