2018 (3) TMI 1557 - AT - Customs

Valuation - rejection of declared value - rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 - Held that - the Commissioner (Appeals) has not given final finding in the matter and has remanded the matter to the lower authority with certain directions to enquire the matter from the supplier s end. No infirmity can be found in the said direction of the commissioner (Appeal), thus justifying interference in the same - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Revenue's appeal against rejection of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the valuation of imported goods without manufacturer's invoice.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the valuation of LCD/LED TV sets of Samsung Brand imported from Dubai. The importer did not possess the manufacturer's invoice, leading Revenue to determine the value of goods based on the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The adjudicating authority enhanced the value, which was appealed by both the assessee and Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee argued for the correctness of the declared value as the transaction value, while Revenue contended for enhancement based on the price from Samsung Singapore site.

The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudicating authority's order and directed the department to verify the correct price with Customs Officers in Dubai. Additionally, the importer was instructed to provide any evidence supporting their valuation. The Commissioner (Appeals remanded the matter, anticipating resolution once the Dubai authorities provide a report after verification. The Revenue appealed this decision before the Appellate Tribunal.

Upon review, the Appellate Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not given a final decision and had appropriately remanded the matter for further investigation from the supplier's end. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that no infirmity was found in the directions given. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the validity of the remand for additional inquiry.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of proper valuation in customs matters, emphasizing the need for thorough investigations and reliance on official sources for determining the value of imported goods when essential documents are unavailable. The decision underscored the significance of following procedural fairness and conducting comprehensive inquiries to ensure accurate valuation in customs cases.