9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 96 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - contemporaneous bill of entry - qualitative difference - Base Oil SN-500 - to be valued at declared price of US 400 PMT as against the departments claim of US 450 PMT as per NIDB data? - HELD THAT - There is no dispute on the fact that the appellant have imported 4000 MTs of base oil and the price on the basis of NIDB data applied is for not more than 500 MTs. It is also observed that the lower authority have not gone into the quality parameter of the goods imported by the appellant and the goods involved in the contemporaneous bill of entry, therefore, due to the higher quantity imported by the appellant, the NIDB data of meagre quantity cannot be applied. It is clear that for applying the NIDB data quantity of the import should be same - on the basis of contemporaneous import the value cannot be enhanced in the present case - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
Valuation of imported goods - Applicability of declared price vs. NIDB data Analysis: Issue 1: Valuation of imported goods - Applicability of declared price vs. NIDB data The central issue in this case revolved around the valuation of goods, specifically "Base Oil SN-500" imported by the appellant from Iran. The dispute centered on whether the goods should be valued at the declared price of US $400 per metric ton (PMT) as per the appellant or at the department's claimed value of US $450 PMT based on NIDB data. The appellant argued that the contemporaneous bill of entry relied upon by the Revenue was for 500 metric tons, whereas the actual import by the appellant was for 4000 metric tons. Therefore, the appellant contended that the price based on the NIDB data for a lower quantity could not be applied to their case. Additionally, the appellant highlighted that they had submitted quality parameters to the adjudicating authority, which were not properly considered. In support of their argument, the appellant cited various judgments to emphasize that for NIDB data to be applicable, the quantity and quality should be the same. On the other hand, the Revenue, represented by the Superintendent, reiterated the findings of the impugned order and relied on several judgments to support their position. However, upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal observed that there was no dispute regarding the appellant's import of 4000 metric tons of base oil, whereas the NIDB data applied pertained to a significantly lower quantity of 500 metric tons. The Tribunal noted that the lower authority had not assessed the quality parameter of the imported goods or the goods in the contemporaneous bill of entry. Citing a previous judgment, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of the quantity being substantially the same for applying valuation rules. Based on this analysis and the precedent set by the previous judgment, the Tribunal concluded that the NIDB data for a lower quantity could not be applied to the appellant's case. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision in this case clarified the importance of considering the quantity and quality parameters when determining the valuation of imported goods, particularly in comparison to NIDB data. The judgment underscored the principle that the quantity of imports should be substantially the same for the application of valuation rules, as established in relevant legal precedents.
|
