Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2017 (8) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2017 (8) TMI 1262 - AT - Customs


Issues Involved:

1. Rejection of Transaction Value.
2. Enhancement of Value for 14 Items Based on Contemporaneous Imports.
3. Enhancement of Value for 11 Items Based on NIDB Data.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Transaction Value:

The appellants imported various parts of earth-moving equipment from Singapore, declaring the country of origin as China. The department suspected the declared value was low due to several reasons, including it being less than the prices of old and used excavators and lower than contemporaneous NIDB values of similar goods. The department addressed a query to the importers to justify the declared value. The importers argued that their values were justified based on clearances in Chennai and comparative rates accepted by the department. They also contended that other imports cannot be used for comparison as their goods were of Chinese origin, and the values considered by the department were outdated. Despite these arguments, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the declared values under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules 2007, leading to an enhanced assessment of the goods' value.

2. Enhancement of Value for 14 Items Based on Contemporaneous Imports:

The Adjudicating Authority enhanced the value of 14 items based on the highest value of contemporaneous imports furnished by the appellant. The appellant argued that this approach violated sub-Rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, which mandates using the lowest value of identical goods to determine the imported goods' value. The appellant also contended that the department ignored the value of the appellant's previous imports and values of imports by other importers, such as M/s. Vaishnavi Engineers and M/s. Ayush Earthmovers. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument, stating that the enhancement based on the highest contemporaneous import value was unjustified. The Tribunal set aside the enhanced value for these 14 items and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to re-determine the value based on the lowest contemporaneous import value.

3. Enhancement of Value for 11 Items Based on NIDB Data:

For the remaining 11 items, the department enhanced the value based on NIDB data. The appellant argued that they were not provided with details regarding the type, model, etc., of the goods used for comparison in the NIDB data. They also contended that NIDB data could not be the basis for value enhancement as it might include values later set aside by higher forums. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, referencing judgments that held NIDB data could not be used for value enhancement. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the enhanced value for these 11 items.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals by setting aside the value enhancement for 11 items based on NIDB data and remanding the matter for the re-determination of the value for 14 items based on the lowest contemporaneous import value. The appeals were allowed in these terms.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates