9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (12) TMI 181 - AT - CustomsValuation Imported Goods Rejection of Value Value of some goods has not been accepted and based on the NIDB data, the values have been enhanced. The Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly given a finding that the commercial level of the NIDB data cannot be compared with the commercial level of the imports made by the Respondent. Held that the findings of the commissioner (Appeals) are correct - Importer had directly imported the goods form the manufactures whereas the NIDB data refers to the goods received from the traders. Therefore there will always be a difference. Importer had produced several evidences by way of Bills of Entry with regard to the import of similar items which it appears to have been ignored by the lower authority. - The NIDB data which they have tried to compare cannot be compared at all because of the vast difference in commercial levels. Departmental appeal rejected.
Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of imported goods (Plastic Zippers, Zipper Runners, Sealing tape, and assorted size zippers and pens). 2. Comparison of declared value with NIDB data. 3. Acceptance of transaction value by the lower authority. 4. Relevance of commercial level and quantity in valuation. 5. Use of NIDB data for valuation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Valuation of Imported Goods: The primary issue revolves around the valuation of five items imported by the Respondent, which included Plastic Zippers, Zipper Runners, Sealing tape, and some assorted size zippers and pens. The Respondent's declared value was not accepted by the Original authority, leading to an enhancement based on NIDB data. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this enhancement, leading to the Revenue's appeal. 2. Comparison of Declared Value with NIDB Data: The Revenue argued that the declared value of Plastic Zippers (Sl. No. 3) and Zipper Runners (Sl. Nos. 4 and 5) was undervalued when compared to the NIDB data. The Original authority enhanced the value based on this data, giving a 20% deduction as per Rule 6 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the NIDB data used for comparison was not appropriate due to differences in commercial levels and quantities. 3. Acceptance of Transaction Value by the Lower Authority: The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the declared value for the items at Sl. Nos. 1 and 2 but not for Sl. Nos. 3, 4, and 5. The Respondent provided evidence of similar goods being cleared at other ports at similar values. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the lower authority had not considered these Bills of Entry and had wrongly enhanced the values based on NIDB data. 4. Relevance of Commercial Level and Quantity in Valuation: The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the NIDB data used for comparison involved smaller quantities and different commercial levels. The Respondent imported larger quantities directly from manufacturers, while the NIDB data referred to goods from traders. This significant difference in commercial levels and quantities made the comparison invalid. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized that adjustments for different commercial levels and quantities should be based on demonstrated evidence, which was lacking in this case. 5. Use of NIDB Data for Valuation: The Revenue contended that the NIDB data was relevant and should be used for valuation. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected this argument, stating that the NIDB data was not corroborated by relevant Bills of Entry and did not account for the larger quantities imported by the Respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) also noted that the NIDB data involved branded items, whereas the Respondent imported unbranded goods, further invalidating the comparison. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating that the Department did not have sufficient grounds to reject the transaction value declared by the Respondent. The NIDB data used for comparison was not appropriate due to differences in commercial levels, quantities, and the nature of the goods (branded vs. unbranded). The appeal by the Revenue was rejected, and the declared values by the Respondent were accepted. Operative Portion: The operative portion of the order was pronounced in the Court upon completion of the hearing on 23-12-2008.
|
