2018 (9) TMI 1673 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - 100% Cotton Knitted Men s T.shirt - according to Revenue, there was Over-valuation which was abnormally high to claim higher Duty Drawback - Revenue relied upon the report of the Valuation Committee - rejection of declared value u/r 8 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007 - Held that - This Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Woodern Style Plus Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli 2018 (7) TMI 709 - CESTAT CHENNAI has held that Apart from the report of the Valuation Committee, there is no other evidence to show over-valuation of the cargo. Even the status of the Valuation Committee does not stand disclosed i.e., as to who were the members of the said Committee, how they arrived at the value?; what was the basis of the findings? and what was the technical and expert qualification of the said members? and so impugned orders are not sustainable. Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over valuation of exported readymade garments, alleged over-valuation, misdeclaration for higher Drawback, confiscation under Customs Act.

Analysis:

1. Valuation Dispute:
The appellant, an exporter of readymade garments, faced a valuation dispute regarding the export of 100% Cotton Knitted Men’s T-shirt. The Commissioner of Customs alleged over-valuation based on a report by the Valuation Committee, setting the price of samples at USD 3.00 per piece. The appellant contended that the valuation was accurate and provided correspondence with suppliers. Despite this, the Commissioner confirmed the over-valuation in the impugned order. The appellant challenged this decision before the forum.

2. Contentions of the Parties:
The appellant's advocate argued that the Revenue should not have relied solely on the Valuation Committee's report, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting over-valuation. Additionally, the advocate highlighted the absence of reasons in the Commissioner's order for rejecting the declared value. The appellant also referenced a previous Tribunal decision to support their case. On the other hand, the Department Representative supported the lower authority's findings.

3. Tribunal Decision:
After considering the arguments and reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contentions. The Tribunal noted that apart from the Valuation Committee's report, there was no independent evidence of over-valuation. Moreover, the Tribunal questioned the expertise and disclosure of the Committee members, emphasizing the lack of reasoning behind rejecting the declared value. Citing a previous case, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned orders were unsustainable. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the lower authority's order and allowed the appeal with any consequential reliefs.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on the evidence and legal principles involved in the valuation dispute of the exported readymade garments.