2018 (4) TMI 733 - AT - Customs

Valuation - enhancement of assessable value for the purpose of levy of CVD - Held that - on perusal of statements recorded that of Shri Rajesh Nor, Shri Mayur Jain, Shri Mahesh Chamey and Shri Keshavji Bhai, it is very clear that they have not stated that the invoice price which they were submitting to the Customs Authorities where in respect of goods which were procured by them from the importers. They simply handed over such invoices where the description of the goods sold by them tallied with the description of the goods imported by the appellants. That does not establish the link between the goods sold by the said 4 retailers to be the goods which were imported through the above stated Bills of entry. The data used for enhancement of assessable value was not the appropriate data. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment based on provisional values under Section 18 of Customs Act, 1962; Determination of Retail Sale Price under Rule 4 of Central Excise (Determination of Retail Sale Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2008; Reliance on market enquiries for assessment; Authentication of statements and invoices for value enhancement; Burden of proof on Revenue for establishing obliteration of Retail Sale Price.

Analysis:
The case involved 111 appeals arising from a common impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Lucknow. The appellants imported various readymade garments and filed 130 Bills of Entry, assessed provisionally under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue conducted market enquiries at Mumbai retailers to determine Retail Sale Price, leading to 130 Final Assessment Orders enhancing assessable value for CVD, which were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the appeals before the Tribunal.

The grounds of appeal challenged the legality of the lower authorities' orders, questioning the invocation of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the reliance on unauthenticated statements and invoices for value enhancement. The appellants contended that the market enquiries did not establish obliteration of Retail Sale Price, as required under Rule 4 of the Central Excise Rules, 2008, and that the data used for enhancement was inappropriate.

During the hearing, the appellants presented statements and invoices from retailers, arguing that there was no evidence of obliteration of Retail Sale Price by the importers. The Revenue defended the impugned orders, citing compliance with provisional assessment procedures under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Upon examination of the statements and invoices, the Tribunal found that the data used for value enhancement lacked a clear link to the imported goods, rendering the Order-in-Original and the impugned Order-in-Appeal unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed all 111 appeals filed by the appellants, entitling them to consequential relief as per law.