2023 (11) TMI 971 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - Mulberry Raw Silk in hanks 20/22 D 3A/4A grade and above - enhancement of value on the basis of contemporaneous import - HELD THAT - It is found that description declared by the appellant as Mulberry Raw Silk in hanks 20/22 D 3A/4A grade and above , whereas the description of the Bill of Entry which has been relied upon by the adjudicating authority is Mulberry Raw Silk yarn 20/22 D 3A/4A grade and above . It is found that the description of the goods is altogether different as the description declared by the appellant is Silk in hanks whereas the adjudicating authority relied on Silk yarn, therefore, the goods imported by the appellant are not identical or similar goods as relied upon by the adjudicating authority. It cannot be accepted that the value enhanced by the adjudicating authority in the absence of any other supporting evidence - it is held that the value declared by the appellant is the correct value of the impugned imported goods - impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue in this case is whether the value of the imported goods declared by the appellant should be enhanced based on the adjudicating authority's reliance on contemporaneous imports at a different port.

Comprehensive details of the judgment:

1. The appellant filed Bills of Entry declaring the goods as "Mulberry Raw Silk in hanks 20/22 D 3A grade and above" with a declared value of USD 38/Kg (CIF) in each case.

2. The revenue initiated proceedings against the appellant for enhancing the declared value of the imported goods based on contemporaneous imports at Chennai port where the value was declared as $46-48 per Kg.

3. The appellant argued that the goods cleared at a value of US $38 per Kg at Calcutta Port prior to the import of the impugned goods should be considered the correct value.

4. The Tribunal noted that the description of the goods declared by the appellant as "Mulberry Raw Silk in hanks" was different from the description relied upon by the adjudicating authority, which was "Mulberry Raw Silk yarn," indicating the goods were not identical or similar.

5. Due to the lack of supporting evidence and the discrepancy in the description of the goods, the Tribunal did not accept the value enhancement by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and held the value declared by the appellant as the correct value of the imported goods, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

Separate Judgment:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.