2023 (6) TMI 909 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - EG Defective/Secondary Sheets - rejection of declared value - enhancement of value on the basis of higher values available on contemporaneous imports NIDB/DGOV data on similar goods - HELD THAT - Valuation of the imported goods is done as per Section 14 of the Customs Act 1962, which states that the value of the imported goods shall be the transaction value of such goods, that is to say, the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India for delivery at the time and place of importation, where the buyer and seller of the goods are not related and price is the sole consideration for the sale. In the instant case, it is observed that the Respondent has imported EG Defective /Secondary Sheets from the sole representative of the manufacturer and the invoice was raised by them - it is observed that the Department has not brought in any evidence to reject the invoice value as declared by the importer. The department has resorted to rejection of the declared value and reassessment of the Bills of Entry on the basis of valuation of contemporary similar/identical goods at other ports as mentioned in NIDB/DGOV data. The EG Defective Secondary Sheets imported by the Appellant cannot be compared with similar goods. The value available in NIDB/DGOV data on similar defective goods are not comparable. The valuation of similar goods depends on factors such as country of origin, quantity of the goods imported, produced by the same person who produced the goods being valued, quality of the goods i.e. characteristics, composition like component material. Moreover, the NIDB data is not exhaustive in nature as it only depicts the value at which the goods are assessed but not whether such assessed value is proposed value by the importer or enhanced value buy the proper officer - the enhancement of value has been done arbitrarily. The department has not brought in any evidence to reject the value declared by the importer. Appeal filed by Revenue dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Enhancement of Declared Values by the Assessing Officer
2. Right to Appeal Despite Consent to Enhanced Values
3. Validity of Using Contemporaneous Imports Data for Valuation

Issue 1: Enhancement of Declared Values by the Assessing Officer
The Appellant imported 'EG Defective/Secondary Sheets' and filed seven Bills of Entry for clearance under self-assessment. The assessing officer re-assessed the Bills of Entry by enhancing the values and rejected the declared invoice values based on higher values from contemporaneous imports NIDB/DGOV data on 'similar goods'. The details of the Bills of Entry along with the comparative chart showing the declared value and enhanced value are provided. To avoid delay and demurrage charges, the importer cleared the goods on payment of enhanced Customs Duty. The assessment order was passed under section 17(5) of the Customs Act 1962 for all the Bills of Entry.

Issue 2: Right to Appeal Despite Consent to Enhanced Values
The Department contended that the Respondents agreed to the enhancement of values and sought waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing. They cited the decision in Advanced Scan Support vs CC, Jodhpur, which held that when Show Cause Notice is expressly foregone and the valuation is consented, the violation of principles of natural justice cannot be alleged. However, the Respondent argued that they agreed to the enhanced value only to avoid demurrage and port rent, and it doesn't mean they have foregone their statutory right to appeal. The Tribunal observed that the right to appeal is a statutory right and cited multiple cases, including Commissioner of Customs, Delhi vs. Maruti Fabric Impex, which supported the Respondent's right to challenge the enhancement despite clearing the goods on the enhanced value.

Issue 3: Validity of Using Contemporaneous Imports Data for Valuation
The Tribunal examined whether the valuation of the imported goods was valid under Section 14 of the Customs Act 1962, which states that the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value. The Tribunal noted that the Department did not provide evidence to reject the declared invoice value and relied on the value of similar goods from NIDB/DGOV data. The Tribunal highlighted that 'EG Defective Secondary Sheets' imported by the Appellant cannot be compared with similar goods and that the NIDB data is not exhaustive. The Tribunal cited the case of Ruby Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, which emphasized that unless there was a basis for indicating the transaction value is not genuine, the transaction value should be accepted. The Tribunal concluded that the enhancement of value was done arbitrarily without sufficient evidence, and hence, the appeal by the Department was devoid of merits and liable for rejection.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the Department, upholding the Respondent's right to appeal against the enhanced values and ruling that the enhancement was done arbitrarily without sufficient evidence.

← Previous Next →