2017 (12) TMI 456 - AT - Customs

Valuation - Assessing Authorities entertained a view that the goods are not valued correctly and accordingly, proceeded to re-determine the value in terms of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 - Held that - Admittedly, the value declared by the appellant was rejected and enhanced to US 10 per piece on the sole ground that there were certain imports of similar goods with this value. Neither the basis of NIDB data with full description and specifications of comparable goods were made available to the appellant nor the NIDB data was examined in full for the relevant period. Admittedly, against certain selected entries the data were taken by the Original Authority and summarily applied for enhancement of value - there is no legal justification in such fixation of assessable value. It is also not clear whether the NIDB value referred to by the Original Authority itself is a re-assessed value - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Correct valuation of imported goods for customs duty.
2. Application of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.
3. Rejection of declared value and enhancement to US$10 per piece.
4. Exemption eligibility under notification no.1/11 for CV duty.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a bill of entry for portable power banks imported from China at a unit price of US$7. The Assessing Authorities re-determined the value as US$10 per piece based on NIDB data, resulting in a confirmed differential duty of &8377; 4,52,873. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this assessment.

2. The appellant argued that the re-assessment was arbitrary, as NIDB data was selectively used without disclosing full details or comparability with the imported goods. The assessing authority only considered the capacity of the power bank as 10000 MAH, neglecting other specifications affecting value. The appellant also claimed exemption under notification no.1/11 citing relevant legal precedents.

3. The Tribunal noted that the value enhancement was solely based on selected NIDB entries without disclosing full details or comparability. Different power banks from the same supplier can vary significantly, and capacity alone does not determine value. The assessing authority failed to consider various parameters for comparability and the level of transactions before enhancing the value. The method of fixing the assessable value was deemed legally unjustified.

4. The appellant's claim for exemption from CV duty required a clear finding, referencing legal decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Madras High Court. The Tribunal found the impugned order legally unsustainable and remanded the matter to the Original Authority for re-assessment, emphasizing strict adherence to Valuation Rules. The observations made were to be considered while deciding both valuation and the appellant's exemption claim. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.