2024 (1) TMI 345 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - stock lot of plastic films - rejection of declared value - no data of comparable imports - HELD THAT - It is noticed that Revenue was at no stage produced a comparable import data of other importers and in absence of that, it was not viable for them to reject the declared value - there is no data even in grounds of appeal. In absence of any evidence of contemporaneous import, the rejection of value and invoking Rule 4 or Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, cannot be upheld. In view of above, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside original order u/s Deputy Commissioner - Rejection of declared value of imported stock lot of plastic films - Application of Customs Valuation Rules - Delay in filing appeal by Do Best Infoway.

Issue 1: Rejection of declared value of imported stock lot of plastic films

The appeal was filed by Revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the original order passed by the Deputy Commissioner regarding the import of stock lot of plastic films by Ms. Do Best Infoway. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the declared value of the goods due to lack of comparable import data and invoked Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for a speaking order. However, the Deputy Commissioner again rejected the declared value without providing evidence or reasons for the rejection. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by Do Best Infoways, stating that the enhancement of value under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules was not maintainable due to lack of evidence for comparisons. The Tribunal observed that Revenue failed to produce any comparable import data, making it unjustifiable to reject the declared value and invoke Rule 4 or Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules. Consequently, the appeal filed by Revenue was dismissed.

Issue 2: Application of Customs Valuation Rules

The Tribunal scrutinized the application of Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 in enhancing the value of the imported goods by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted that Rule 5 emphasizes considering commercial and quantity levels of comparable goods for enhancing value. Despite the adjudicating authority's claim of enhancing value based on similar goods, the lack of evidence or reasoning for the comparisons made rendered the enhancement unsustainable. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner (Appeals) that without substantiating the comparisons, the enhancement of value under Rule 5 was not justifiable. Consequently, the impugned order was deemed liable for rejection.

Issue 3: Delay in filing appeal by Do Best Infoway

Do Best Infoway filed an appeal against the rejection of their appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of a delay exceeding the statutory period of limitation by more than 30 days. Despite explanations provided for the delay, the Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court ruling in the case of Singh Enterprises, which held that delays beyond the statutory period for filing appeals cannot be condoned. As a result, the appeal by Do Best Infoway was dismissed.