2023 (10) TMI 510 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - Tin plates defective rejected sheets scrolled - re-determination of import value - rejection of declared value - reliance placed on contemporaneous imports of similar goods - HELD THAT - While there is a reference made to contemporaneous imports of allegedly similar goods cleared through Group-4, there are also references made to distinguishing factors like numerable types of descriptions, grades, country of origin, place of exportation and importation, etc. This clearly throws a doubt as to the admissibility of such alleged contemporaneous imports and the very basis to treat the same as comparables with the goods in question that were imported. Moreover, the officer has relied on alleged contemporaneous imports which were never put across to the appellant for rebuttal, but however, that such reliance on the contemporaneous imports itself has been doubted by the adjudicating authority when he holds that the value of the imported goods could not be determined under Rule 4 and Rule 5 due to variable factors like numerable types of descriptions, grades, country of origin, etc.; Rules 7 and 8 also could not be applied for want of quantifiable data at the place of exportation and importation respectively. The quantity of import is much higher than the quantity of import in respect of the contemporaneous imports. Hence, so-called contemporaneous imports were in fact incomparables, due to which the rejection of the value of import as declared by the appellant is without any basis. The re-determination of the import value by the Revenue is without any basis and certainly not in accordance with the spirits of law, for which reasons the same deserves to be set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves questioning the valuation of "Tin plates defective rejected sheets scrolled" imported under the DEPB scheme, classified under CTH 7210 1110, and the re-determination of import value under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.

Valuation Issue:
The appellant contested the re-determination of import value, arguing that the transaction value should be adopted unless covered by exceptions under Rule 3 or rejectable under Rule 12. The adjudicating authority did not examine the import value in the context of these rules, leading to a challenge of the authority's actions as not in accordance with the law.

Appellant's Contentions:
The appellant's advocate contended that the values extracted from the Bills-of-Entry could not be the transaction values and should not have been adopted for re-determination. The appellant requested setting aside the impugned order confirming the re-determined import value.

Revenue's Position:
The Additional Commissioner relied on the findings of the lower authorities, supporting the re-determination of import value.

Judicial Analysis:
The Tribunal considered whether the authorities were justified in re-determining the import value. They found that the original authority did not find any deficiency in the import value declared by the appellant and failed to provide an opportunity for rebuttal regarding the contemporaneous imports used for comparison.

Doubts on Comparability:
The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the alleged contemporaneous imports, including differing descriptions, grades, and origin countries. The officer's reliance on these imports was questioned due to variable factors that cast doubt on their comparability with the appellant's goods. The quantity discrepancy further rendered the contemporaneous imports incomparable, leading to the rejection of the declared import value without a valid basis.

Decision:
The Tribunal concluded that the re-determination of import value lacked a basis and was not in line with legal principles. Therefore, they set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.

This judgment highlights the importance of proper assessment and comparability in determining import values, emphasizing the need for authorities to adhere to legal standards and provide opportunities for rebuttal in valuation disputes.