2017 (11) TMI 1341 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - rejection of declared value - enhancement of transaction value based on NIDB data of contemporaneous imports - In respect of items in S.Nos.2,6,9,10,11,13,15,18,19 and 20, the enhancement is made merely on the basis of NIDB data - Held that - reliance placed in the Tribunal s decision in the case of M/s. Best Ways International Company Versus Commissioner of Customs, Trichy 2017 (8) TMI 1262 - CESTAT CHENNAI , where it was held that the NIDB data cannot be made the basis for enhancement of value - enhancement of value to be set aside. In respect of items in S.Nos.1,12 and 21, the enhancement is not on the basis of NIDB data or contemporaneous imports of identical goods, but the value is enhanced on the basis of other models descriptions - Held that - this cannot be the basis for enhancement and thus the enhancement is set aside. In respect of Item No.22, the enhancement is based on the enhanced value of the Bill of Entry which was in dispute in the appellant s own case as mentioned above - Held that - the enhancement not sustainable and is to be set aside. In respect of Items in S.Nos.8,14,17, the enhancement is made on the highest value of contemporaneous imports - Held that - sub Rule (3) provides that in applying this Rule, if more than one transaction value of identical goods is found, the lowest of such value shall be used to determine the value of imported goods - following the decision in appellant own case as mentioned, the enhancement of value is set aside - the matter has to be remanded to the adjudicating authority to re-determine the value on the basis of lowest value of the contemporaneous imports. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of declared value of imported goods.
2. Enhancement of value based on NIDB data.
3. Non-availability of contemporaneous import data.
4. Enhancement based on other models' descriptions.
5. Adoption of highest value in contemporaneous imports.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Declared Value of Imported Goods:
The appellants filed a Bill of Entry for the import of 'parts of assembled machineries,' declaring a value of ?12,92,315.80. The department scrutinized the Bill of Entry and found the declared value to be very low. Reasons cited included the value being lower than that of old and used excavators, lower than NIDB values for similar goods, and previous scrutiny and enhancement of similar goods' value by the Tuticorin Custom House. Consequently, the department subjected the goods to a first check for determination of assessable value.

2. Enhancement of Value Based on NIDB Data:
The department enhanced the value of several items based on NIDB data. The original authority accepted the declared value for items 3, 4, 5, 7, and 23 due to the absence of any value database. For the remaining items, the value was determined under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, after rejecting the declared values under Rule 12. The total duty was calculated at ?6,49,713 on the determined value of ?20,95,080.

3. Non-Availability of Contemporaneous Import Data:
The appellant argued that the department did not provide sufficient grounds for rejecting the transaction value and that the enhancement was based on NIDB data alone. They cited several judgments where it was held that NIDB data could not be the sole basis for value enhancement. For items 9, 10, and 18, the original authority admitted the lack of relevant NIDB data but proceeded to enhance the value based on NIDB data of imports from a different country of origin (Japan).

4. Enhancement Based on Other Models' Descriptions:
For items 1, 12, and 21, there was no NIDB data available, and the department attempted to enhance the value based on the description of goods of other models. Similarly, item 16 was enhanced without any basis. The Tribunal found this approach incorrect and set aside the enhancement for these items.

5. Adoption of Highest Value in Contemporaneous Imports:
For items 8, 14, and 17, the enhancement was based on contemporaneous imports. However, the adjudicating authority adopted the highest value instead of the lowest, which is against the prescribed law. The Tribunal held that the enhancement should be set aside and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to re-determine the value based on the lowest value of contemporaneous imports.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed. The enhancement of value for items 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 was set aside. The matter for items 8, 14, and 17 was remanded to the adjudicating authority to re-determine the value based on the lowest contemporaneous imports. The appeal was disposed of with consequential reliefs, if any.

← Previous Next →