2020 (1) TMI 681 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - PVC Flex Sheet - rejection of declared value - reasons for rejecting the value declared by the appellant not given, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to pass speaking order for enhancing the value - HELD THAT - The transaction value has been rejected without according sufficient reasons. Further, on perusal of the discussions and findings of the original authority, the department has made comparison of the contemporaneous imports of which description of the goods do not match with the goods that are imported by the appellant. The brand name of the goods as well as the specification are different. Comparison of the value of such goods which are different from the goods imported by the appellant and enhancement thereon is against the provisions of law. The enhancement of value cannot sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Rejection of declared value by the importer
- Enhancement of value in bills of entry
- Lack of reasons provided for rejecting declared value
- Comparison of contemporaneous imports
- Applicability of contract terms in import valuation

Analysis:

The judgment involves the appeal of an importer regarding the rejection and subsequent enhancement of the declared value of PVC Flex Sheets imported from China. The Department rejected the declared value, leading to enhanced assessments in two bills of entry. The appellant challenged this decision before the Commissioner (Appeals) after paying duty under protest. The assessing authority was directed to provide reasons for rejecting the declared value, which led to a confirmation of the value enhancement upon reassessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the enhancement in separate orders, prompting the appellant to file further appeals.

The primary issue addressed in the appeals was the rejection and enhancement of the imported goods' value. The appellant argued that the goods were imported based on a standing contract with the overseas manufacturer-supplier, requiring compliance with specified properties and test methods. The appellant contended that the Department should not have rejected the transaction value without valid reasons. It was highlighted that the original authority's comparison of goods did not align with the goods imported by the appellant, emphasizing that the enhancement was unjustified under the law.

The appellant's counsel relied on previous decisions favoring the appellant, where the Tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeals and emphasized the necessity of evidence for contemporaneous imports to reject transaction value. The Department, represented by the Learned AR, supported the impugned order's findings. After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found that the rejection of the transaction value lacked sufficient reasons and the comparison made by the Department did not match the goods imported by the appellant. The Tribunal concluded that the enhancement of value was against the law and cited previous decisions in favor of the assessee.

In light of the discussions and precedents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals with consequential reliefs. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing valid reasons for rejecting declared values, ensuring that comparisons are accurate and consistent with the imported goods' specifications. The decision underscored the significance of honoring contractual terms in import valuation and upheld the appellant's position based on established legal principles and precedents.