2023 (10) TMI 541 - AT - Customs

Revaluation of imported goods - Vitrified and Porcelain Tiles - rejection of declared value - reliance placed on NIDB data - HELD THAT - There is no discussion as to the quantity of import, commercial level and other data insofar as the NIDB data referred to is concerned, nor anywhere is found to any discussion by the original authority as to how the same were comparable with the impugned goods on hand, imported by the appellant. There is no discussion also as to the quality, thickness, etc., in the goods referred to in the NIDB data. The Tribunal Benches across India have held that the NIDB data alone cannot be the basis for rejection of the transaction value. There is a reference to under-valuation way back in 2000, no specific reference to the appellant s case, no reference ever made to the price being at arm s length, nor is there any allegation that the transaction was between related parties. In the case on hand, the Revenue has not alleged anything other than relying on NIDB data. The Revenue has to first establish that the goods imported and contemporaneous goods are identical in the first place before proceeding further, which exercise has not at all been done by the Revenue in the case on hand - The Hon ble Apex Court in its latest judgement in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S GANPATI OVERSEAS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI YASHPAL SHARMA ANR. 2023 (10) TMI 364 - SUPREME COURT has held that the legal position is that transaction value can be rejected if the invoice price is not found to be correct but it is for the Department to prove that the invoice price is not correct. The under-valuation attempted by the Revenue does not persuade to approve the same in any manner - the re-valuation cannot be accepted that came to be upheld in the impugned Order-in-Appeal as well, for which reason the impugned order is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The only issue involved is whether the Revenue is justified in re-valuing the imported goods by rejecting the declared value.

Comprehensive Details:

1. Investigation and Provisional Assessment:
- The Director General of Valuation suspected undervaluation of the imported goods as early as in 2000, leading to provisional assessment pending verification of the declared unit value.

2. Order-in-Original Analysis:
- The Order-in-Original did not provide a clear outcome of the investigation initiated due to suspected undervaluation. It referred to NIDB data and contemporaneous imports to conclude that the declared value by the appellant was significantly lower without substantial evidence of under-valuation.

3. Lack of Justification for Re-valuation:
- The Tribunal found discrepancies in the original authority's analysis, noting the absence of reasons for the alleged under-valuation by the appellant. It highlighted that relying solely on NIDB data is insufficient to reject the transaction value without establishing comparability with the imported goods.

4. Legal Precedents and Principles:
- The Tribunal emphasized that NIDB data alone cannot be the basis for rejecting the transaction value. It pointed out the necessity for the Revenue to prove incorrect invoice prices before re-valuing imports. Citing a recent judgment, it reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the Department to demonstrate incorrect invoice prices.

5. Decision and Conclusion:
- The Tribunal did not approve the Revenue's attempted under-valuation and set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal. The appeal was allowed with consequential benefits as per law.

This summary provides a detailed breakdown of the judgment, addressing the issues involved and the Tribunal's analysis of the re-valuation of imported goods based on the declared value.