2017 (10) TMI 1071 - AT - Customs

Valuation - rejection of declared value - The value was enhanced on the ground that appellant had declared different prices for the goods having the same description - Held that - we do not find any cogent ground for rejecting the transaction value. The only doubt raised by department is that for same description of goods different prices have been declared. This has been explained by the appellant by giving technical write up and analysis report, Moreover, the declared value of subsequent imports having been accepted by department, we find no grounds to uphold the rejection of transaction value and enhancement - the enhancement is unjustified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of declared value and enhancement under Rule 9 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.
2. Contention regarding rejection of declared transaction value without sufficient reasons.
3. Discrepancy in declared prices for goods with the same description.
4. Acceptance of declared value in subsequent imports of identical products.
5. Justification of the enhancement and the appeal outcome.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed two bills of entry for clearance of goods, but the Proper Officer of Customs enhanced the value of the imported goods under Rule 9 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal.

2. The appellant argued that the declared transaction value was rejected without sufficient reasons. They highlighted that the chemical in question is industry-specific, with different grades used for various purposes. The appellant provided evidence, including certificates of analysis, to demonstrate the differences in chemical properties and uses of the imported products.

3. The appellant pointed out that although the goods had the same description, they had different chemical properties, were used for distinct purposes, and belonged to different batch numbers. They emphasized that the declared prices varied due to these differences, which were further supported by technical write-ups and analysis reports.

4. The appellant presented details of subsequent imports of identical products where the declared value was accepted by the Customs department. This inconsistency in treatment raised doubts about the rejection of the transaction value for the goods in question. The Tribunal found no valid grounds to support the rejection, especially when subsequent imports had their declared values accepted.

5. After reviewing the evidence and arguments, the Tribunal concluded that the enhancement of the value was unjustified. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief. The decision highlighted the importance of considering the specific characteristics and uses of imported goods when determining their value for customs purposes.