9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 1080 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - 100% Non-Textured Polyester Lining Falling - Mix Lot of 100% Polyester Knitted Fabrics - to be classified under CTH 54076190 and CTH 60053200 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or not - redetermination of value of goods as per NIDB data under Rules of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and assessed bills of entry - benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-CE dtd. 19.07.2014 as amended by Notification No. 34/2015-CE dtd. 17.07.2015 - HELD THAT - Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs Valuation Rules makes it abundantly clear that transaction value in the ordinary course of commerce is to be taken as the assessable value. The Customs Valuation Rules outlines the step-by-step methodology to be adopted for re-determination of the assessable value in certain cases. The primary requirement for re-determination of the value is that the transaction value should be rejected for cogent reasons prescribed in the Customs Valuation Rules. If the transaction value is rejected, then the Customs Valuation Rules prescribes the basis for arriving at the assessable value. However, the requirement of Section 14 and the Customs Valuation Rules need to be satisfied for enhancement of value. Nothing is forthcoming from the record of the case from which the basis for such re-assessment can be made out. Rejection of declared value on Bill of Entry is a serious affair and the same could have been rejected on the basis of cogent examination of evidences and justifiable reasons. From plain reading of the Rule 12 it is quite evident that the word doubt used in the rule has to be based on cogent reasons and evidences. No cogent evidence or reason has been put forth in the present case to justify the doubt of the assessing officer. Clearly, for rejection of the transaction value under Rule 12, there has to be a reasonable ground and it cannot be rejected merely on the ground that similar goods have been imported at higher value without examining the applicability of Rule 5 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. In the present case, the adjudicating authority enhanced the value as the declared value appears to be low compared to value available in NIDB data, otherwise, there is no material available. The Tribunal consistently observed that the declared value cannot be enhanced merely on the basis of NIDB data - Tribunal in the case of NEHA INTERCONTINENTAL (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, GOA 2006 (5) TMI 279 - CESTAT, MUMBAI has held in the absence of rejection of transaction value, invoice value requires acceptance and when the contemporaneous import of similar goods is not established, value cannot be enhanced. Whether appellant are eligible for exemption Notification under Notification No. 30/2004-CE dtd. 09.07.2004 which provide exemption form Countervailing Duty (CVD)? - HELD THAT - An identical issue has been decided by this tribunal in the appellant s own matter of SEDNA IMPEX INDIA PVT LTD. VERSUS C.C. MUNDRA 2022 (2) TMI 1355 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD where it has been held that the appellant are clearly entitled for the exemption Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 for exemption from CVD on the imported goods - it is settled that the appellants are entitled for the exemption from payment of CVD under notification No.30/2004-CE. Appeal allowed - decided in favour of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of declared value under Rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. 2. Applicability of Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 for exemption from Countervailing Duty (CVD). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of Declared Value: The appellants challenged the rejection of the declared value of imported goods by the original adjudicating authority, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The adjudicating authority had re-determined the value of the goods based on NIDB data under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The appellants contended that the authorities erred in invoking Rule 12 for rejecting the declared value without proper evidence. They argued that the NIDB data alone cannot justify the rejection of transaction value without proving undervaluation. The tribunal observed that the transaction value declared by the importer should form the basis of assessment unless rejected for reasons set out in the Customs Valuation Rules. Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with the Customs Valuation Rules, mandates that the transaction value in the ordinary course of commerce should be taken as the assessable value. The tribunal cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Eicher Tractors, emphasizing that the transaction value should be accepted unless specific exceptions apply. The tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority did not provide cogent reasons or evidence to justify the rejection of the declared value. Rule 12 requires the proper officer to have reasonable doubt based on cogent reasons and evidence, which was lacking in this case. The enhancement of value based on NIDB data alone was deemed insufficient without examining the applicability of Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The tribunal further highlighted that the adjudicating authority failed to ascertain whether the goods of contemporaneous imports were identical or similar to the imported goods. The appellants argued that the imported goods were Mixed Lot of Polyester Knitted Fabrics, which are different from fresh quality polyester knitted fabrics. The tribunal found that the enhancement of value without proper examination of the quality, quantity, and characteristics of the goods was incorrect. The tribunal concluded that the enhancement of value based on NIDB data alone was not justified and set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals with consequential relief. 2. Applicability of Notification No. 30/2004-CE: The appellants claimed the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004, which provides exemption from CVD. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected this claim on the grounds that the appellants did not raise the issue at the time of assessment and failed to fulfill the condition of non-availment of Cenvat Credit on inputs/capital goods. The tribunal referred to its previous decision in the appellant's own case, where it was held that the condition of non-availment of Cenvat Credit need not be satisfied by the importer. The tribunal cited the Supreme Court's judgment in SRF Ltd. and AIDEK Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd., which clarified that the benefit of excise duty exemption available to domestic manufacturers also applies to importers for CVD purposes. The tribunal emphasized that the assessing officers are bound to verify the eligibility of the exemption notification and extend its benefit. The tribunal rejected the contention that the benefit of the notification cannot be claimed due to the absence of protest at the time of assessment. It reiterated that the benefit of exemption notification can be claimed at any stage. The tribunal concluded that the appellants were entitled to the exemption from CVD under Notification No. 30/2004-CE and set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals with consequential relief. Conclusion: The tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants. The rejection of declared value under Rule 12 was deemed unjustified due to the lack of cogent reasons and evidence. The appellants were also found eligible for the exemption from CVD under Notification No. 30/2004-CE.
|
