2017 (12) TMI 340 - AT - Customs

Valuation - Mini Booster Pump 50GPD of Chinese origin - enhancement of value - Held that - respondent has stated that this Tribunal has held in the above stated case of M/s Sanjivani Non Ferrous Trading Limited 2017 (3) TMI 359 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD held that as provided by Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 the assessable value has to be arrived at on the basis of the price which is actually paid and in a case the price is not sole consideration or if the buyers and sellers are related persons then after establishing that the price is not sole consideration the transaction value can be rejected and taking the other evidences into consideration the assessable value can be arrived at - such exercise has not been done in the present case by the Original Authority and, therefore, the impugned Order-in-Appeal is sustainable. Revenue s contention that enhancement of assessable value by the Assessing Officer was correct has not been supported by any evidence by Revenue. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of assessable value for imported goods
2. Allegations of undervaluation by Revenue
3. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.NOI-CUSTM-000-APP-1722 to 1726-16-17

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD involved the assessment of the assessable value of imported goods, specifically 10664 pieces of Mini Booster Pump 50GPD of Chinese origin. The original authority enhanced the assessable value based on NIDB data after 100% examination of the goods. Subsequently, the respondent filed four Bills of entries for the goods with the same description and value, which were also enhanced by the original authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of the appeals through an Order-in-Appeal dated 28.02.2017. The Commissioner noted that under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, the assessable value should be based on the price actually paid. The Commissioner rejected the enhanced value, stating that there was no evidence of undervaluation, and upheld the original assessable value.

2. The Revenue alleged undervaluation of the imported goods and contended that the Assessing Officer correctly rejected the value declared in the Bills of entries for the goods. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) relied on a previous Tribunal decision and emphasized the need for detailed inquiries and material evidence to support allegations of undervaluation. The Revenue failed to provide such evidence to establish undervaluation, leading to the rejection of the enhanced value by the Commissioner.

3. Upon hearing the arguments from both parties, the Appellate Tribunal did not find merit in the grounds of appeal filed by Revenue. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and the records before concluding that the impugned Order-in-Appeal was reasonable and legally sustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal dated 28.02.2017 and rejected the appeal filed by Revenue. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in court by the Tribunal.