2020 (11) TMI 164 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - watches - rejection of transaction value - Revenue has mainly contended that the impugned order is not legal and proper inasmuch as the prevalent price of same model of watches sold in ecommerce sites by different sellers at the relevant point of time was at much higher side - HELD THAT - The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded the findings that price taken for comparison from e-commerce sites cannot be considered as contemporaneous value of goods to reject the transaction value and has also relied upon various authoritative judgments pronounced by the Hon ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that in absence of any of the special circumstances indicated in Section 14(1) ibid read with Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, the price actually paid to the supplier shall be considered as the transaction value. The observations made by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order are in conformity with the statutory provisions. Thus, such findings recorded in the impugned order cannot be disturbed at this juncture for deciding the case differently - there are no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay application against impugned order dated 29.11.2019.
2. Contention regarding the legality of the impugned order based on price comparison.
3. Consideration of transaction value as per Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal dismissed the stay application filed by Revenue against the impugned order dated 29.11.2019. The Tribunal noted that the disputed goods were already released to the respondent by the department following a judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Since the goods were not available with the department and no statutory provisions supported the grant of stay, the Tribunal rejected the application for stay of the impugned order.

2. Revenue contended that the impugned order was not legal, arguing that the price of the watches on e-commerce sites at the relevant time was higher, making the transaction value questionable. However, after examining the impugned order and case documents, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly applied the Customs Valuation Rules. The Commissioner had ruled that the price paid to the supplier should be considered as the transaction value unless special circumstances under Section 14(1) and Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules were present. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's findings, stating that the price from e-commerce sites was not a valid basis for rejecting the transaction value.

3. The Tribunal found no fault with the impugned order issued by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal affirmed that the Commissioner's decision was in line with statutory provisions, specifically Section 14(1) and Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Consequently, the appeal filed by Revenue was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld as legally sound and proper.