2023 (9) TMI 1268 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - mixed lot of 100% polyester knitted fabric rolls of different colours and weight - rejection of declared value on the basis of contemporary import value as per the provisions of Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 5 and Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules - eligibility for exemption from counter-veiling duty under Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 - inadvertent failure to claim the benefit of the notification at the time of import of the consignments of the 100% polyester knitted fabrics. HELD THAT - While determining a particular import to be considered as a contemporaneous import for enhancement of the declared value, it is necessary to match all the relevant details such as quality, quantity, physical characteristics of the products, brand, country of origin, time of import, time of placement of order, stock sales etc. We are of the opinion that consideration of these factors is a necessary and legal requirement. Merely giving the details of only Bills of Entry may be of identical or similar goods would not be sufficient for legally rejecting the transaction value declared by the importer under Section 14 of the Customs Rules, 1962 - Merely by providing NIDB data where it is not clear whether the NIDB data value is declared or assessed (enhanced) value, the onus of providing reasonable evidence by the Revenue is not discharged, the Revenue has failed to discharge the onus of providing reliable evidence which rejecting the declared transaction value. Availability of Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S SRF LTD., M/S ITC LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI, COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT AND GENERAL) , NEW DELHI 2015 (4) TMI 561 - SUPREME COURT has held that the condition of non-availment of Cenvat credit on input/ capital goods need not be satisfied by the importer of such goods and therefore, we are of the view that appellant was entitled for exemption from CVD at the time of clearance of imported goods. The matter is no longer res-integra as this Tribunal in the case of SEDNA IMPEX INDIA P LTD, GARG IMPEX AND SOIR INTERNATIONAL VERSUS C.C. -MUNDRA 2023 (3) TMI 1080 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD has already decided both the matters holding that 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. Further it was also held in the said case 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. The enhancement of transaction value in present appeals is without any legal backing therefore the same is rejected and declared value need to be adopted for the purpose of assessment - the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 shall be available to the appellants. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

(i) Rejection of declared value of imported 100% polyester knitted fabric rolls based on contemporary import value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 5 and Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules.

(ii) Eligibility for exemption from countervailing duty under Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 despite failure to claim the benefit at the time of import.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue (i): Rejection of Declared Value of Imported Goods

The Appellant contended that the rejection of the transaction value based on higher prices of contemporary imports is legally incorrect. The declared unit price varied between Rs. 115/kg to Rs. 133/kg CIF, while the department enhanced it to Rs. 148 to Rs. 182/kg without reasonable grounds or evidence. The department failed to prove that the declared transaction value was not genuine and did not provide any bills of entry of higher CIF value. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider factors like quantity, GSM, quality, and time of import as required by Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The Tribunal noted that the rejection of transaction value requires matching all relevant details such as quality, quantity, and physical characteristics. Merely providing NIDB data without clarity on whether it is declared or assessed value does not discharge the onus of providing reliable evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the enhancement of value based on NIDB data is not legally sustainable.

Issue (ii): Eligibility for Exemption from Countervailing Duty

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SRF Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs held that the condition of non-availment of Cenvat credit on inputs/capital goods need not be satisfied by the importer. The Tribunal followed this precedent and held that the appellant was entitled to exemption from CVD at the time of clearance of imported goods under Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004. The Tribunal also noted that the matter is no longer res-integra as similar issues were decided in favor of the appellants in previous cases such as Sedna Impex India P. Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mundra. The Tribunal reiterated that the benefit of exemption notification can be claimed at any stage and should be extended to the assessee even if not claimed at the time of import.

Conclusion:

The impugned orders-in-appeal were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the department to provide cogent reasons and evidence for rejecting the declared transaction value and upheld the appellant's eligibility for exemption from CVD under Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004.