2024 (4) TMI 178 - AT - Customs

Valuation - Imported 20 MT of Aluminium powder 99.7% - enhancement of value - duty paid under protest - Non speaking order - appellant waived the show cause notice as well as Personal Hearing - HELD THAT - There is no detailed discussion as to how the enhancement has been arrived at by the assessing authority. For this reason we are of the considered view that the matter has to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for re-considering the assessment of the imported goods. The appellant is at liberty to furnish details of contemporaneous imports before the adjudicating authority who shall look into these evidences also. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The appeals are allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the declaration of value for imported goods, the determination of related party transactions, and the assessment of duty paid under protest.

Declaration of Value for Imported Goods:
The appellants imported Aluminium powder at declared values which were deemed low by the Department. The Department re-determined the value, alleging a related party transaction with the foreign supplier. The appellant contended that the declared value was genuine and paid duty under protest. The authorities failed to provide a basis for the value enhancement, leading the Tribunal to remand the matter for re-consideration.

Related Party Transaction:
It was established that the overseas supplier was a related party, but the appellant had waived the show cause notice and personal hearing. The appellant provided details of contemporaneous imports, which were not considered by the authorities. The Tribunal found that the assessing authority did not adequately explain how the value enhancement was calculated, prompting a remand for further assessment.

Assessment of Duty Paid Under Protest:
The appellant maintained that the duty was paid under protest, disputing the significant increase in the assessed value by the Department. Despite the appellant's submission of price details from the same supplier for identical goods, the authorities did not consider this evidence. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals by remanding the matter for a fresh assessment.