9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 232 - AT - CustomsRejection of declared value - import of bitumen 60/70 packed in iron drums - misdeclaration of imported goods - demand based on NIBD data for the similar goods - HELD THAT - The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has proceeded to decide the issue as per the directions of this Tribunal issuing a detailed show cause notice to the appellant. However, the grounds of rejection of impugned value i.e. the transaction value have not been delivered in the show cause notice. Though, the value given in two Bills of Entry which have been relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) showed a much higher value of the import consignment than declared by the appellant. Since the declared value matches with the already accepted assessable value of the goods at different ICDs, only because two consignments of JNCH, Nhava Sheva were imported at higher prices, same cannot be taken as the contemporary import value of the imported items namely, bitumen 60/70 for rejection of the transaction value of the imported consignments when similar value of the identical goods have been accepted by the Department. Since declared value match with the lower accepted contemporary value, there is no ground for rejection of the same - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
Classification of imported bitumen 60/70, assessment of value of imported consignment, rejection of transaction value, application of Customs Valuation Rules, determination of Customs Tariff Heading. Classification of Imported Bitumen 60/70: The case involved the classification of imported bitumen 60/70 under Customs Tariff Heading 2714 9090, which was later contested by the Department to be under Heading 2713 2000. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Department's appeal, leading to a remand by CESTAT for re-adjudication. The Commissioner issued a show cause notice and ultimately classified the goods under Heading 2713 2000, increasing the value from USD 380 PMT to USD 570 PMT. The appellant did not contest the classification but objected to the increased value based on contemporaneous imports. Assessment of Value of Imported Consignment: The imported consignment's value was initially assessed at USD 380 PMT by the Deputy Commissioner. However, the Department suspected misdeclaration and sought to enhance the value to USD 570 PMT based on contemporaneous imports. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the increase, leading to the appeal before CESTAT. The appellant argued that similar imports at ICD Jodhpur, Mundra, and Ludhiana were cleared at USD 380 PMT, questioning the basis for the value enhancement. Rejection of Transaction Value and Application of Customs Valuation Rules: The show cause notice issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked details on why the declared transaction value was unacceptable. The appellant highlighted eight contemporary import consignments cleared at USD 380 PMT, emphasizing the importance of following the Customs Valuation Rules. CESTAT noted that the declared value matched accepted values at other ICDs, emphasizing the need to consider the lowest transaction value for identical goods as per the Rules. Determination of Customs Tariff Heading: The tribunal found that the rejection of the transaction value was unjustified, as the declared value aligned with contemporaneous imports and lower accepted values. Citing legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in a similar case, CESTAT concluded that there was no valid ground for rejecting the transaction value. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and both appeals were allowed. This detailed analysis covers the issues of classification, assessment of value, rejection of transaction value, application of Customs Valuation Rules, and determination of Customs Tariff Heading as addressed in the legal judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI.
|
