2024 (5) TMI 208 - AT - Customs

Imports Cyanuric Chloride - Rejection of declared value of import - contemporaneous import - Revenue not produced the necessary documents - HELD THAT - We find that the Revenue has failed to fulfil the requirement of producing evidence of contemporaneous import. The basis of rejection of declared value and revision thereof is contemporaneous import. The Revenue does not seem to have the said evidence of contemporaneous import as they have failed to produce despite large number of opportunities. In that circumstances the appeal has to be allowed. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief.

Summary

Issues involved: Rejection of declared value of import by Revenue.

Comprehensive details of the judgment:

1. The issue in the instant cases pertained to the rejection of the declared value of import by Revenue. The Hon'ble Apex Court had directed that the appellants should be provided with the information forming the basis for the Revenue's rejection of the declared value. The appellants were not given the opportunity to dispute the comparability of the import transactions, and without such information, they could not establish the unsustainability of the Revenue's claim. The appellants admitted importing goods known commercially as 'Cyanuric Chloride,' and the comparability of these transactions needed to be examined based on the material relied upon by the Revenue. The appellants should have been given a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate if the transactions relied upon by the Revenue were not comparable. The impugned order confirming the original assessment was unsustainable due to the lack of material proof of alleged comparable imports at a higher value.

2. Subsequently, the Tribunal directed the Revenue to submit necessary documents like bill of entries and copies of contemporaneous imports. Despite several opportunities and reminders, the Revenue failed to produce the required evidence of contemporaneous import. The basis for the rejection of the declared value and its revision was the contemporaneous import evidence, which the Revenue did not provide despite multiple chances. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief as the Revenue had not fulfilled the requirement of producing evidence of contemporaneous import.