2023 (4) TMI 354 - AT - Customs

Classification of the imported goods - Aluminium Composite Plates of various thickness - to be classified under heading 76061190 or under Heading 76109090? - rejection of declared value - enhancement of declared value based on NIDB data - HELD THAT - Heading 7610 covers Aluminium structures and its parts - parts of structures illustrated in the tariff heading 7610 includes bridge and bridge sections towers lattice masts roof roofing frameworks door windows and their frames and thresholds for doors balustrades pillars and columns. The list includes in said tariff entry includes only the structural elements and not the material used in making such structural elements. Further parts of structures as the aluminium plates rod profiles tubes and the like fall under the tariff heading 7610 only if prepared for use in structures . In the present matter neither the show cause notice nor impugned order-in-original indicate that the imported Aluminium Composite Plate was prepared in any manner for use in structures. Therefore Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the present matter correctly held that the imported goods cannot be considered as prepared for use in structures and therefore falls out of the scope of heading 7610. Valuation of imported goods - rejection of declared value - Enhancement of value of imported goods - HELD THAT - The Commissioner has rightly held that there are no reasons to reject the price declared by the respondents. There is merit in the contention of the respondent that the earlier assessment does not preclude them from protesting the enhancement of value on the same lines for subsequent imports. It is also found that in the present matter there are no reasons recorded by the revenue for rejection of transaction value before taking the exercise of revaluation and enhancement of transaction value. In the case of MODERN MANUFACTURERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUS. NEW DELHI 2018 (1) TMI 1472 - CESTAT NEW DELHI the Tribunal held that enhancement of value of imported goods based on NIDB data and circular issued by DGOV without rejecting declared value under Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules 2007 is not proper. Redetermination of value based on NIDB data and DGOV circular is not sustainable. In the present case no exercise of rejecting the declared value under Rule 12 and process of applying Valuation Rules sequentially were followed. Therefore the value declared by the respondent has to be accepted. There are no reason to interfere with the impugned order and the same is sustained - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Imported Goods
2. Valuation of Imported Goods

Summary:

1. Classification of Imported Goods:
The primary dispute pertains to the classification of the imported goods, specifically 'Aluminum Composite Plates'. The Revenue classified the goods under CTH 76109090, while the respondent classified them under CTH 76061190. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the classification under CTH 76061190, noting that this heading covers "aluminium plates, sheets, and strips of a thickness exceeding 0.2 mm." The Revenue argued that the goods are "composite material" and should be classified under CTH 7610, which covers "aluminium structures and parts of structures." However, the Tribunal found that the imported goods were not "prepared for use in structures" and thus fall under CTH 76061190, as they are not structural elements but materials used in making such elements.

2. Valuation of Imported Goods:
Regarding the valuation, the Revenue contended that the enhancement of value in the Order-In-Original (OIO) was in accordance with the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, citing a previous import assessed at a higher value. The respondent argued that the earlier assessment was not contested to expedite clearance. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner correctly held there were no reasons to reject the declared price and that the Revenue did not follow the proper procedure for rejecting the declared value under Rule 12 before revaluation. The Tribunal upheld the declared value, referencing the case of Modern Manufacturers, which held that enhancement based on NIDB data without rejecting the declared value is improper.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order, sustaining the classification under CTH 76061190 and accepting the declared value. The appeal filed by the Department was dismissed.