2018 (7) TMI 1017 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - Mercedes Benz E220 CDI AT white - invocation of Rule 8 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 - Commissioner (A) held that though the assessing officer has correctly invoked the Rule 8 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, they have failed to arrive at the price on the basis of which is available in India - Held that - The respondents have for the first time submitted another invoice showing the price at USD 6200 before the appellate authority. The same was not pleaded before the original assessing officer. Moreover, though it was stated in the Order-in-Appeal that the respondent has produced evidence that in 2006 the same model car was traded in India at ₹ 7,80,000/- and ₹ 8,30,000/-, the price at a reasonable correlation to the invoice submitted by the respondent at the appellate stage; however, the details of invoices were not given - the assessing officer has prima facie accepted the submission of the respondents that the value was declared wrongly at the time of import on the basis of original value in 2001 and the assessing officer has allowed depreciation of 58%. Therefore, the reasonableness of the assessing order is not in doubt. It is a clear case where the Commissioner (A) has entertained a new evidence even though the conditions under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 (1) (a) to (d) are not satisfied and he has also not given any records in writing for such admission. The matter should necessarily go to the original assessing authority for a proper evaluation of the claim of the respondent with the available evidence and following due processes of law - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of imported vehicle for customs purposes.
2. Admissibility of additional evidence before the Commissioner (A) in customs appeals.

Issue 1: Valuation of imported vehicle for customs purposes
The respondent filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of an imported Mercedes Benz E220 CDI AT white with a declared CIF value and assessable value. The respondent later requested a reconsideration of the declared value, claiming the showroom rate declared in the Bill of Entry was a mistake. The price was determined under Rule 8 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, with depreciation and additional amounts for extra fittings and refurbished items. The Commissioner (A) accepted evidence that the same model car was traded in India at a lower value, modifying the assessing order. The Department appealed, questioning the valuation process and the genuineness of the evidence submitted.

Issue 2: Admissibility of additional evidence before the Commissioner (A) in customs appeals
The Department contended that the Commissioner (A) should not have considered new evidence submitted by the respondent without giving the assessing officer an opportunity to examine it. The Department raised doubts about the authenticity of the new invoice submitted during the appeal stage, highlighting discrepancies in currency and timing of submission. The Commissioner (A) had accepted a cost claimed by the respondent that was not presented before the assessing officer. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (A) entertained new evidence without meeting the conditions set out in the Customs (Appeals) Rules, necessitating a remand to the original assessing authority for proper evaluation following due process of law.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority for reevaluation in accordance with the legal procedures. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the rules governing the admission of additional evidence in customs appeals to ensure a fair and transparent valuation process.