2017 (10) TMI 415 - AT - Customs

Valuation - rejection of declared value - contemporaneous import of similar / like goods based on the NIDB data - whether there are sufficient grounds for rejecting the declared value as well as adopting the value indicated in the NIDB data? - Held that - in several cases the courts have held that NIDB data is to be adopted very cautiously and cannot be adopted in an indiscriminate manner - the goods laid down as comparison from the NIDB data is by way of Bill of Entry No.950716 dated 15.10.07 at Nhava Sheva port has been assessed provisional only and the value adopted by the department based on the said import at Nhava Sheva port cannot be accepted as such, as no evidence put forth by the revenue to prove that both impugned goods are one and the same - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of imported goods based on declared value versus NIDB data.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the valuation of imported goods declared as "Zinc Ash with 65% Zinc content, Lead less than 1.25% and Cadmium less than 0.1%". The respondent filed a Bill of Entry for import, which required a license. The department raised concerns about the declared value being low compared to contemporaneous imports based on NIDB data. After adjudication, the original authority dropped the proceedings, which the department appealed against. The Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the decision. The key issue was whether there were sufficient grounds to reject the declared value and adopt the NIDB data value.

The department argued that the declared value of ?7.64 per kg was low compared to similar consignments in the NIDB data, ranging between ?40 to 90 per kg. They proposed enhancement based on NIDB data. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the imported item differed in metal content from the NIDB data and that the NIDB value was for provisional assessment.

The Commissioner (Appeals) analyzed the situation and noted that the imported goods were intended for specific agricultural use, different from the goods in the NIDB data. The chemical test confirmed the composition of the goods, which were non-metallic zinc ash with specific characteristics. The Commissioner highlighted that the NIDB data value for similar goods intended for agricultural use was ?7.64722/kg, which was more applicable in this case.

Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal emphasized the cautious adoption of NIDB data. The Tribunal held that the value of goods could vary based on quality and origin, and there was no evidence to support a uniform valuation. Considering the facts presented and the precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the impugned order did not warrant interference.