2017 (11) TMI 1189 - AT - Customs

Valuation - enhancement of value - value was enhanced on the ground that the similar goods were imported at higher price - It would appear that the appellant s failure to submit copy of the contract, manufacturer s price list, details of negotiated price are the reasons for rejecting the transaction value - Held that - the appellant has rightly objected to such enhancement on the ground that the contemporaneous value should be comparable on various parameters. There is no finding as to how the contemporaneous value has been accepted based on true comparison - The appellant s contention that their product is unbranded and the product, with which it is compared, is branded again carries much weight - also there is more than two months gap in comparison of similar consignments. The admitted fact is the price of impugned goods are highly flexible and varied even in a short period - rejection of transaction value and refixing of such value not justified. The impugned order failed to justify with factual and legal basis for enhancing value as ordered by the Revenue - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Enhancement of assessable value and demand of differential duty
- Imposition of penalty under Section 114 A of the Customs Act, 1962
- Comparison of imported goods with similar goods for valuation

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Jaipur, regarding the enhancement of assessable value and the demand of a differential duty on imported unrecorded CD-R and DVD-R by a trading company. The Original Authority had rejected the declared assessable value, enhanced it, and imposed a penalty under Section 114 A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order. During the proceedings, the appellant failed to appear on multiple occasions, leading to the case being disposed of based on appeal records and submissions of the Department.

The appellants argued that the imported goods were unbranded and should not be compared with branded goods for valuation. They contended that various factors influence the value of imported goods, such as quality, quantity, country of origin, and trade relationships. The Revenue's comparison of values did not consider these factors, and the appellant provided data showing lower prices for similar goods in other ports. The appellant's costing calculations were rejected without reason, and the comparison lacked reference to contemporaneous prices or detailed examination of influencing factors.

Upon examination, the Tribunal found that the impugned order did not provide a factual or legal basis for enhancing the value as directed by the Revenue. The order merely summarily rejected the transaction value without discussing the appellant's submissions or justifying the valuation based on similar imported goods. The Tribunal noted the lack of detailed analysis in the impugned order and the failure to consider the appellant's arguments regarding the unbranded nature of their product and the fluctuating prices in the market. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the impugned order lacked justification for enhancing the assessable value and demanding differential duty. The decision highlighted the importance of considering all relevant factors in valuing imported goods and criticized the lack of detailed reasoning in the original order.