2017 (8) TMI 763 - AT - Customs

Valuation - sanitary ware and bathroom fittings - it was alleged that all the imports made by the appellant during the last one year by way of 30 BE were undervalued - Held that - apart from the market inquiries there is no other evidence on record disapproving the transaction value. It is well settled law that such market inquiries cannot be made the basis for enhancing the assessable value. As such, we are of the view that impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) calls for no interference - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of sanitary ware and bathroom fittings, Allegations of undervaluation, Market inquiries as evidence, Rejection of transaction value, Sequential assessment under Valuation Rules, Interference with Commissioner (Appeals) order.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI involved a dispute regarding the valuation of sanitary ware and bathroom fittings. The case stemmed from the Revenue's belief that the goods were undervalued, leading to investigations and detention of goods for further scrutiny. Market inquiries from specific dealers suggested undervaluation in the appellant's imports over the past year. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued proposing a demand confirmation and penalties, which resulted in an order by the original adjudicating authority.

Upon appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the Revenue's case heavily relied on market inquiries, without rejecting the transaction value based on evidence of additional remittances to the foreign exporter. The Commissioner also highlighted the failure of lower authorities to sequentially decide the assessable value as per Valuation Rules. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the original order, emphasizing that market inquiries alone cannot enhance the assessable value, and there was no other evidence besides these inquiries to disprove the transaction value.

Ultimately, the Appellate Tribunal found no grounds for interference with the Commissioner (Appeals) order, as the market inquiries lacked the necessary evidentiary support to justify altering the transaction value. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, and the decision was pronounced in open court on 9-1-2017.