2018 (2) TMI 956 - AT - Customs

Rejection of declared value - Polyester Zipper Rolls from China - claim of the appellant was rejected in the impugned order only on the ground that they failed to produce the bills of entry - Held that - while taking contemporaneous imports for comparison of assessable value, it is necessary to examine that such comparison are made with declared value and not with already enhanced value. Further, when there are multiple declared values, during the material period, it is an accepted principle that lowest price of such comparable value will be considered for re-determination of value of goods, whose original declared value was rejected. None of these principles have been followed in the present assessment - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection and enhancement of declared value for imported goods
2. Comparison of declared values for assessment
3. Principles for re-determination of value of goods

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, regarding the declared value of Polyester Zipper Rolls imported from China. The Tribunal had previously directed the Commissioner to pass a detailed order on merit, leading to the current appeal.

2. The appellant imported four consignments of Polyester Zipper Rolls, each for 11 MT, with declared values ranging from &8377; 93.65 to &8377; 95.17 per kg. The assessing authority rejected these values and increased them to &8377; 129.51 per kg. The appellant argued that the re-determination was based on certain consignments imported through a specific entity, for which they were not provided details to verify if they were identical goods. They presented information on imports of similar goods through various ports with varying assessable values, emphasizing the bonafide nature of their transaction.

3. The respondent contended that the comparison with imports through a particular entity was valid due to significant variations in declared values by other importers during the same period. However, the Tribunal noted that the comparison should consider various factors like country of origin, quantity, terms of import, and period. The appellant's data showed similar goods imported from China for a lower declared value of &8377; 110.84, which was not considered in the impugned order. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity to compare declared values, not already enhanced values, and to consider the lowest comparable value for re-determination. These principles were found lacking in the assessment, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of a thorough comparison based on relevant factors and adherence to established principles in re-determining the value of imported goods. The decision to set aside the order was based on the failure to follow these principles, ensuring a fair assessment of the declared values for the Polyester Zipper Rolls imported by the appellant.