2019 (8) TMI 433 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - Polyester Knitted Fabrics (mixed lot) - rejection of declared value on the strength of contemporary imports - HELD THAT - The order-in-original in the instant case was passed on the basis of assertion that they were on contemporaneous imports of ₹ 148 per Kg. The order-in-original shows that there is no mention of name of importer or number of Bills of Entry on the basis of which said observation has been made. Without any specific evidence of contemporaneous imports the assertion of contemporaneous price is baseless. The order-in-original does not disclose the documents, the data, quantity, price etc. of the contemporaneous imports. Thus, the order-in-original was without any evidence. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of declared value based on contemporary imports.
2. Validity of declared value rejection without specific evidence of contemporaneous imports.
3. Comparison with previous legal judgments on similar cases.
4. Impact of lack of evidence on the order-in-original.
5. Decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in setting aside the demand.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by Revenue against the rejection of the declared value of Polyester Knitted Fabrics imported by the respondent at ?121 per Kg, which was revised to ?148 per Kg based on contemporary imports.

2. The respondent argued that there was no valid ground for the rejection of the declared value as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a similar case. The order-in-original lacked specific details of contemporaneous imports supporting the revised value of ?148 per Kg, leading to the assertion that the rejection of the declared value was unjustified.

3. The respondent cited legal precedents where the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside additional duty demands due to the absence of evidence on contemporaneous imports supporting the revised value. The lack of corroborative evidence of imports at or near the revised price rendered the valuation invalid, as highlighted in previous judgments.

4. The lack of specific evidence of contemporaneous imports in the order-in-original raised doubts about the validity of the decision to enhance the declared value without concrete supporting data. The absence of details such as importer names or Bill of Entry numbers further weakened the grounds for rejecting the declared value.

5. Considering the absence of specific evidence of contemporaneous imports and in line with the principles established in previous legal judgments, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightfully set aside the demand. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by Revenue, emphasizing the necessity of concrete evidence to support valuation decisions, as per the legal precedents cited.

This detailed analysis highlights the issues raised in the judgment, the legal arguments presented by both parties, the relevance of previous legal judgments, the impact of lack of evidence on the decision-making process, and the final decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal.