2019 (5) TMI 244 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - pearls - rejection of declared value - case of Revenue is that it is a case of mis-declaration of the description of goods therefore valuation are required to be assessed by approved valuer of the goods - HELD THAT - In this case the appellant have failed to give complete description of the imported goods with regard to size colour and shine etc. and therefore valuation are required to be reassessed as the value declared by the appellant are not acceptable in the absence of description of goods as there is discrepancy in details and prices of imported goods therefore valuation is required to be done in this case. There are various complaints against Shri Apurva Jagdish Mehta (the approved valuer of the goods) therefore his reports are not acceptable. As there is no valuation report by approved valuer therefore we appoint a panel to value the pearls who shall examine the remnant samples of the goods in question and thereafter to determine appropriate value of the imported goods and the same shall be the basis of valuation of imported goods. The panel of these three people shall examine the goods and to arrive the correct approximate value of imported goods - Matter on remand.

Summary

Issues involved: Valuation of imported pearls, discrepancy in valuation reports, mis-declaration of goods, appointment of panel for valuation.

Valuation of imported pearls: The case involved importers undervaluing pearls to avail benefits, leading to interception of goods and valuation by Shri Apurva Jagdish Mehta and Pangem Testing Laboratory. Discrepancies arose in valuation reports, with the appellant disputing the values. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide complete descriptions of the goods, necessitating a reassessment of valuation due to discrepancies in details and prices.

Discrepancy in valuation reports: The appellant argued against the valuation reports, stating that pearls are sold based on size, color, and shine, not grades. The Tribunal noted complaints against Shri Apurva Jagdish Mehta, the approved valuer, rendering his reports unacceptable. Consequently, a panel comprising an officer from the department, a Gem and Jewellery Association representative, and an independent valuer was appointed to reassess the value of the imported goods.

Mis-declaration of goods: The authorized representative contended that mis-declaration of goods required valuation by an approved valuer, justifying the rejection of declared values. The Tribunal acknowledged the need for reassessment due to incomplete descriptions provided by the appellant, leading to the appointment of a panel for valuation.

Appointment of panel for valuation: The Tribunal appointed a panel to value the pearls, comprising an expert from the department, a Gem and Jewellery Association representative, and an independent valuer. The panel was tasked with examining the goods and determining the appropriate value in the presence of the importers, with the Adjudicating Authority concluding the assessment based on the panel's valuation.

In summary, the judgment addressed issues related to the valuation of imported pearls, discrepancies in valuation reports, mis-declaration of goods, and the appointment of a panel for reassessing the value of the imported goods. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of accurate valuation based on complete descriptions of goods and appointed a panel to conduct a thorough valuation process in the presence of the importers.