2007 (9) TMI 211 - AT - Customs

Synchronous motors of 3 wattage - contemporaneous import Dept sought to compare imported goods of 3 W, with goods having different wattage i.e. 4W, & also having different diameter, width, weight - on technical specifications Comm(A) found that goods weren t identical because 3 W motor would have lesser wires & lesser value as compared to 4 W motor order of comm.. is justified, there is no undervaluation no new ground can be raised for first time before tribunal revenue appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to value determination of synchronous motor by Revenue.

Analysis:
The Revenue challenged the Commissioner's order regarding the value determination of synchronous motors. The appeal memo referred to a value of Rs. 12.77 per motor imported under a specific Bill of Entry, but during arguments, the Department contended that the value of contemporaneous imports of similar AC type motors at Rs. 18.58 per unit should have been accepted. The Respondent argued based on Customs Valuation Rules that the lowest value of Rs. 4.43 per unit should be accepted, considering a cluster of transactions. The Commissioner adopted a value of Rs. 6.37 per piece based on NIDB data. The Revenue objected to this value, claiming it was not comparable as it referred to a DC motor, while the imported motors were AC motors. The Commissioner justified the value based on technical specifications and variations in wattage, copper wire, weight, and size.

The sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 requires using the lowest value of identical goods when multiple transactions are involved, precluding the acceptance of the value of Rs. 12.77 per unit. The Commissioner found the declared value by the importer to be on the lower side and determined the value based on Rule 6. The Revenue disputed this determination, arguing for a higher value of Rs. 18.73 per unit based on comparable instances. The Commissioner's decision to rely on the value of Rs. 6.37 per piece from a specific import was upheld, considering technical specifications and the lowest value in the NIDB data.

The entry relied upon by the Commissioner was contested by the Revenue, claiming it related to DC motors, but the Commissioner justified the choice based on proper scrutiny and comparable instances. The factual dispute regarding DC and AC motors was not raised earlier by the Revenue, and the Commissioner's decision was found to be reasonable and in accordance with the Customs Valuation Rules. The Tribunal agreed with the reasoning and findings of the impugned order, dismissing the appeal and cross-objections.