9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 178 - AT - CustomsRe-valuation of the impugned goods imported - rejection of the declared value by the Revenue on the ground of NIDB data - Import of 990 Pcs of Uber Brand Induction Cooker with 1 PCT Free Spare Parts Model No. UB001IC (2000W) and 1170 Pcs of Uber Brand Induction Cooker with 1 PCT Free Spare Parts Model No. UB002IC (2000W) and the country of origin was China - HELD THAT - The reason for the Assistant Commissioner to reject the declared value is solely based on the NIDB data and other than this, there are no contemporaneous imports of similar goods declaring higher value having been referred to, by the said authority. Moreover, it is a fact borne on record that the appellant had tried to impress upon the Assistant Commissioner by furnishing imports of similar goods by various other importers, the value of which almost matched with that of the appellant before us, but however the same has not at all been considered by the said authority. It is the settled position of law that NIDB data cannot be the only basis for rejection of the declared value, which has been reiterated by various CESTAT Benches, including the Chennai Bench, in the case of M/S. ALMAA TRADERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT) , CHENNAI 2023 (10) TMI 510 - CESTAT CHENNAI wherein it was held that so-called contemporaneous imports were in fact in comparables, due to which the rejection of the value of import as declared by the appellant is without any basis. The Revenue has not made out a case firstly, for the rejection of the declared value and secondly, no case is either made out justifying re-determination of the same. The decisions/orders relied upon by the appellant support our above view, and hence, the adjudicating authority was clearly in error in rejecting the declared value and then re-determining the same; and hence, the impugned order is clearly unsustainable. Appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the rejection of the declared value by the Revenue and the consequent determination of the value by the original authority. Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Rejection of declared value and re-determination by the Revenue The appellant imported goods and declared the unit value, which was subsequently re-valuated by the Assistant Commissioner based on NIDB data, leading to rejection of the declared value and re-determination at a higher price. The original authority solely relied on the NIDB data for re-determination without considering if the declared value was false or incorrect. The appellant appealed against this decision, arguing that similar goods imported by others matched their declared value, but this was not considered. The Tribunal held that NIDB data alone cannot be the basis for rejecting the declared value, citing precedents where such rejections were found to lack a proper basis. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's re-determination lacked basis and was not in accordance with the law, setting aside the impugned order. Issue 2: Lack of justification for rejection of declared value In a similar case, the Tribunal found that the NIDB data was insufficient to justify the rejection of the declared value. The Revenue did not provide specific reasons for undervaluation, nor did they compare the quality or other relevant factors of the imported goods. It was emphasized that the transaction value cannot be rejected solely based on higher prices of identical goods, without establishing comparability. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to prove that the declared value was incorrect, as required by law. Based on these findings, the Tribunal held that the Revenue did not make a case for rejecting the declared value or re-determining it, ultimately setting aside the impugned order. In both cases, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of proper justification and evidence when rejecting declared values and emphasized the need for adherence to legal principles in customs valuation. The judgments serve as precedents for cases where declared values are challenged based on external data without sufficient grounds.
|
