Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2017 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2017 (11) TMI 1439 - AT - Customs


Issues involved: Classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff and correct valuation for duty purpose.

Classification Issue:
The dispute in the case revolves around the classification of the imported External VGA Box. The appellant claimed classification under Chapter Tariff Heading 84733030 as "other mounted printed circuit boards" under the main Heading "Parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with machines of Heading 8469 to 8472." On the other hand, the Revenue argued for classification under Heading 85299090 as "others" under the main heading "Parts suitable for use solely or principally with apparatus of Heading 8525 to 8528." The original authority relied on the HSN Explanatory Note to determine the classification, ultimately deciding that the goods should be classified under Chapter 85 and not Chapter 84. However, the Tribunal found that the impugned goods, which are plug and play devices usable only with a computer monitor and not a TV monitor, should be classified under Chapter 84. The Tribunal noted that while the appellant's classification under subheading 84733030 was incorrect as it pertains to mounted printed circuit boards, the main heading 8473 is appropriate for the External VGA Box.

Valuation Issue:
Regarding the valuation of the imported goods, the original authority rejected the declared value of US$ 13.35, citing that the appellant had previously imported similar items through Nhava Sheva with a value of US$ 14.63. The authority reassessed the value based on the earlier import, applying Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules. However, the Tribunal found that there was no adequate reason provided for the rejection and redetermination of the assessable value. Considering the slight price difference of about 10% and the fact that the goods were imported three months apart, the Tribunal held that the original authority's decision lacked justification. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis and decision on the classification and valuation issues in this case resulted in setting aside the original order, providing relief to the appellant based on the specific nature and use of the imported goods and the lack of proper justification for the valuation decision.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates