2021 (10) TMI 542 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - Glass Chaton of various varieties - rejection of declared value - enhancement of value based on NIDB data - It has been argued that the NIDB data is based on reassessment and not based on actual invoice value - HELD THAT - In the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) the revenue has argued that the adjudicating authority while passing the impugned order has not considered the OIA of the Commissioner (A), Ahmedabad, wherein the enhancement of transaction value has been upheld. The said order has already been set aside and no reliance can be placed on the said order. The Order In Original gives specific grounds why the declared value cannot be rejected. The impugned order does not give any findings on why the said order is incorrect except to rely on the earlier order of Commissioner (Appeals) which has already been set aside by Tribunal. The matter once again is remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh order without relying on the earlier order of Commissioner (Appeals) and limiting himself to the grounds of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Enhancement of assessable value of importers based on NIDB data, rejection of declared assessable value, comparison of import data, reliance on earlier orders of Commissioner (Appeals), violation of natural justice, remand to Adjudicating Authority.

Analysis:

1. Enhancement of Assessable Value based on NIDB Data:
The appeal was filed for the enhancement of the assessable value of importers by the appellant. The Tribunal found that the value of the imported goods was enhanced based on NIDB data without providing necessary documents, which was deemed a violation of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority for re-examination after providing the required documents and ensuring a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing.

2. Rejection of Declared Assessable Value:
The Adjudicating Authority initially rejected the declared assessable value and loaded it based on contemporaneous imported prices of goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) partly upheld and partly remanded the decision based on the quantity and quality of Glass Chaton involved in the documents. The Tribunal observed errors in the comparison of import data, emphasizing the need to compare each item individually rather than the total quantity, especially considering the different sizes, grades, and varieties of Glass Chatons.

3. Reliance on Earlier Orders of Commissioner (Appeals):
The Tribunal noted that the impugned order heavily relied on the findings of an earlier order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 13.06.2016, which had already been set aside. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of independent findings for rejecting the declared assessable value and criticized the reliance on the earlier order which lacked proper grounds for rejection.

4. Remand to Commissioner (Appeals):
In light of the above issues, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh order. The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to refrain from relying on the earlier order that had been set aside and to limit the decision-making process to the grounds of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

This detailed analysis highlights the key issues surrounding the rejection and enhancement of the assessable value of importers, the comparison of import data, and the reliance on earlier orders, leading to the remand of the case for a fresh order.