2018 (7) TMI 1226 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - enhancement of value based on NIDB data - Held that - The Revenue s contention that enhancement of assessable value by the Assessing Officer was correct has not been supported by any evidence by Revenue - there are no merits in the grounds of appeal filed by Revenue - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. NOI-CUSTM-000-APP-786 to 790-17-18 dated 18.08.2017 passed by Commissioner Appeals, Central Goods & Service Tax, Noida.
2. Assessment of imported goods - Mini Booster Pump 50GPD of Chinese origin.
3. Enhancement of assessable value by the Original Authority.
4. Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and rejection of enhanced value.
5. Grounds of appeal by Revenue and arguments by learned counsel for the respondent.
6. Tribunal's decision on the appeal and stay applications.

Analysis:

1. The present appeals were filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. NOI-CUSTM-000-APP-786 to 790-17-18 dated 18.08.2017 passed by Commissioner Appeals, Central Goods & Service Tax, Noida. The respondent had imported 10664 pieces of Mini Booster Pump 50GPD of Chinese origin and declared an assessable value of ?18,22,742.48. The Original Authority enhanced the assessable value to ?32,67,865 based on NIDB data. Subsequently, the respondent filed four Bills of entries for the goods with the same description and value, which were also enhanced by the Original Authority. The respondent appealed before Commissioner (Appeals) against the enhancement of assessable value.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the enhanced value, citing the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s Sanjivani Non Ferrous Trading Limited. The Commissioner emphasized that under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, the assessable value should be based on the actual price paid, and if there is undervaluation, detailed inquiries and material evidence are necessary. The Commissioner found no evidence of undervaluation in the present case and hence rejected the enhanced value.

3. The Revenue argued that the Assessing Officer correctly rejected the value declared in the Bill of entries for the goods. However, the respondent's counsel pointed out that the Original Authority did not follow the necessary steps as outlined in the Customs Act, 1962, for rejecting the transaction value and arriving at the assessable value based on other evidence.

4. Upon hearing the contentions, the Tribunal found no merit in the grounds of appeal filed by Revenue. They upheld the Order-in-Appeal dated 28.02.2017, stating it was reasonable and sustainable in law. Consequently, the appeal by Revenue was rejected, and the stay applications were disposed of.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment comprehensively, highlighting the key arguments and decisions made by the authorities involved in the case.