2023 (12) TMI 42 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - enhancement of value - rejection of declared value - basis of enhancement of the value exists or not - presence of contemporaneous goods or not. Petitioner submits that the entire enhancement of the value is based on the data taken from the Zuaba Portal and authenticity of the same is not known, there is no evidence of the genuineness of the data in Zuaba. HELD THAT - It is found that the appellant has imported stock lot of Jute Bags, which was declared in the bill of entry. The department has enhanced the value on the basis of data gathered from the website of Zuaba. It is undisputed fact that the authenticity of the platform of Zuaba has not been established or department has not made any effort to verify the authenticity of the same. It was also a submission of the appellant that it is not approved by any government agency and the same is a private platform. Therefore, the sole reliance made on the data appearing on Zuaba platform, in our view is not correct and legal. Since the data of Zuaba is not authentic, there is no any other evidence to doubt the value declared by the appellant. The department has not discharged the burden in rejecting the declared value. Even from the data of Zuaba which was relied upon by the department that the goods appearing on that data are not similar or identical to the one imported by the appellant. A perusal of the description of the said goods mention in the said table. Such as New Binola Jute Bags , Vegetable Oil Treated New Jute Bags etc. are not identical to the goods under import - The stock lot, if not of the same quality of which the new goods are, and thus, the stock lot is available at a lesser price in the market. Therefore,there are no basis for rejecting the declared value by the appellant. The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the enhancement of value in the bill of entry for clearance of stock lot of Jute Bags, rejection of declared value by the Adjudicating Authority, and the reliance on data from the Zuaba platform for valuation.

Issue 1: Enhancement of value in the bill of entry:
The appellant filed a bill of entry for clearance of stock lot of Jute Bags, which was classified under CTH 6305 1040. The customs enhanced the value in the bill of entry and assessed duty on the enhanced value, contending that the importer consented to the enhancement. The Commissioner (Appeals) remitted the matter for re-examination, and upon re-determination, the value was upheld at Rs. 62 per Kg. The appellant, being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the appeal, leading to the present appeal.

Issue 2: Rejection of declared value by the Adjudicating Authority:
The Adjudicating Authority rejected the declared value of the appellant in the bill of entry and upheld the enhanced value for assessment, re-determining it at Rs. 62 per Kg as per Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The appellant's counsel argued that there was no basis for the enhancement of value, as no contemporaneous goods were found, and the reliance on data from the Zuaba platform was not justified.

Issue 3: Reliance on Zuaba platform for valuation:
The department enhanced the value based on data gathered from the Zuaba platform, without establishing the authenticity of the platform. The Tribunal noted that the data from Zuaba did not match the goods imported by the appellant, as the country of origin was different. It was observed that the Zuaba data did not support the rejection of the declared value, as the goods described were not identical to the appellant's imported goods. The Tribunal distinguished the case cited by the Revenue, emphasizing that the facts were not similar in the present case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellant. The reliance on the Zuaba platform for valuation was deemed incorrect and lacking legal basis, leading to the rejection of the enhanced value in the bill of entry.