2023 (9) TMI 365 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - water based printing ink or solvent based printing ink - rejection of declared value - enhancement of value based in NIDB data - Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 has been applied or not - HELD THAT - This is case of repeated remands therefore it seems that the original authority has not purposely followed the directions of the appellate authority leading to unnecessary litigation to the party - there are no order of the proper officer has been passed within 15 days of assessing the Bills of Entry as the same was not accepted by the party and the release of goods procured under protest. Also, there is no order on record indicating the Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 has been applied after rejecting the transaction value on the basis of enquiry and a reasoned order indicating that the materials were rejectable and on what ground alone the appeal is liable to succeed. In identical facts, various benches of this Tribunal have ordered the same proposition in the case ITALIK METALWARE PVT LTD VERSUS C.C. -MUNDRA 2023 (8) TMI 1157 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD and in the case of M/S. SARDA ENERGY AND MINERALS LTD. VERSUS CCE, RAIPUR 2017 (9) TMI 1142 - CESTAT NEW DELHI of firstly there being requirement of rejecting transaction value after inquiry and order. Therefore, in the absence of following such statutory requirement the show cause notice becomes unsustainable. The appellant therefore becomes eligible to relief - the remand order passed second time by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the rejection of declared value of imported goods, remand orders, application of Customs Valuation Rules, and the requirement of a reasoned order for rejecting transaction value.

Details of the judgment:

1. Rejection of declared value and remand orders:
The appellant had filed Bills of Entry for clearance of imported VNS Professional Refill Ink, but the value declared was not accepted by the department. The Bills of Entry were provisionally assessed by enhancing the declared value. On appeal, the case was remanded for fresh adjudication, and the value was re-determined. The appellant raised concerns about the adjudicating authority not properly ascertaining facts for higher unit price and not providing details of NIDB data used for comparison. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed for a denovo decision due to discrepancies.

2. Lack of assessment order and reasoned rejection:
The appellant appealed the remand order, emphasizing that there was no assessment order within 15 days as required by the Customs Act when the declared value was not acceptable. The appellant argued that the value was reduced without a reasoned rejection of the declared value. The appellant contended that the department did not provide NIDB data or a proper order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act.

3. Tribunal's findings and decision:
The Tribunal observed that repeated remands indicated the original authority's failure to follow directions, leading to unnecessary litigation. It noted the absence of a proper officer's order within 15 days of assessing the Bills of Entry and the lack of a reasoned order for rejecting the transaction value. Citing precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the requirement of rejecting the transaction value after inquiry. Due to the failure to meet statutory requirements, the show cause notice was deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal set aside the remand order and the entire proceedings, granting consequential relief to the appellant.