2017 (9) TMI 1211 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - polyester spun yarn - enhancement in value based on Directorate of Valuation data (DoV data) - Held that - It is well settled law that transaction value has to be accepted as the assessable value for the purpose of duty, unless the same is proved to be incorrect by production of any evidence. The said legal issue is settled by various decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Venture Impex Pvt. Limited vs. CC (Import & General), New Delhi 2016 (4) TMI 368 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , while setting aside the enhancement of the value on the basis of NIDB data, it was held that for adopting any other method for enhancement of the value of the imported goods, first of all transaction value is required to be rejected as incorrect/false on the basis of some evidences. It is only thereafter that the other method of deciding value has to be adopted. At the time of assessing the bills of entry, no evidence stand given for enhancing the value and the same has been done only on the basis of DoV data, by observing that similar goods stand imported at the higher value. No further details are available as to how the present consignment is similar to the earlier imports - The Revenue has neither alleged nor produced any evidence on record to indicate that the value agreed upon between the buyer and the seller or as reflected in the invoices is not a correct value, thus justifying the enhancement. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of declared value of imported goods.
2. Application of Directorate of Valuation data for enhancing value.
3. Rejection of transaction value without sufficient evidence.
4. Justification of enhancing value based on DoV data.
5. Legal precedents supporting acceptance of transaction value.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported polyester spun yarn at a declared value of USD 1.01 per Kg, which was later enhanced to USD 1.40 per Kg by the officers based on Directorate of Valuation data. The appellant contended that the earlier import at the same value should be considered, as it was part of a larger contract with the Chinese supplier. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, leading to the present appeal.

2. The Tribunal emphasized that transaction value should be accepted unless proven incorrect with evidence. Relying on legal precedents, including Venture Impex Pvt. Limited Vs. CC (Import & General), the Tribunal held that the Revenue must first reject the transaction value with evidence before adopting alternative valuation methods. The Tribunal found no evidence to reject the transaction value in this case and set aside the order based solely on DoV data.

3. The Tribunal highlighted that the Revenue failed to provide evidence to reject the transaction value agreed upon between the importer and the exporter. The appellant presented the contract and invoices as evidence of the agreed value, which the Revenue did not dispute. Without evidence of incorrect value, the Tribunal deemed the enhancement unjustified.

4. The Tribunal reiterated that the reliance on DoV data without rejecting the transaction value is not valid. Citing decisions like CC, New Delhi Vs. Virasat Electronics, the Tribunal emphasized the need for evidence before disregarding transaction value. In this case, the Tribunal found no justification for enhancing the value based solely on DoV data without evidence of incorrect value.

5. Legal precedents, such as Kelvin Infotech Pvt. Limited Vs. CC & CCE, Meerut, and decisions confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, supported the Tribunal's stance on rejecting transaction value only with evidence. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's position and set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeal with relief to the appellant.