2024 (5) TMI 629 - AT - Customs

Valuation of Export of Iron Ore fines - payment of customs duty under protest - contemporaneous export - HELD THAT - We find that the transaction value has not been rejected nor its correctness doubted, as is evident from the orders of the court below. We further find that resorting to the contemporaneous prices is vague and further, there is no consideration as to the quantity, etc. We also find that the copy of such material with regard to contemporaneous export prices was not made available to the assessee, which has been relied upon for making the final assessment. In this view of the matter, we find that reliance on such contemporaneous export data is hit by the ruling of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills vs Commissioner of Income Tax 1954 (10) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT . Accordingly , we hold that such contemporaneous prices cannot be adopted for the purpose of finalisation of assessment. Accordingly , we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority, who is directed to hear the appellant and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. Accordingly , we allow this appeal by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved: Dispute regarding the value of Iron Ore fines exported by M/s Moorgate Industries India Pvt Ltd for the purpose of payment of customs duty.

Summary:
The appellant exported Iron Ore fines after payment of customs duty under protest, based on a contract specifying price variations according to Fe content. The Fe content in the cargo was found to be below 62%, leading to a lower invoiced amount. The Customs Authority provisionally assessed the goods at a lower value, which was disputed by the appellant.

The final assessment by the Adjudicating Authority considered contemporaneous export prices of similar goods with 62% Fe content, setting the value at USD 170 MT. The appellant challenged this assessment, arguing that the transaction value was not rejected, and Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules was not followed.

In subsequent rounds of litigation, adjustments as per Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules were not made, and the Denovo Order-in-Original failed to address remand directions. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the assessment, citing adjustments in commercial and quantity levels. However, the appellant contended that the contemporaneous price adoption was incorrect and lacked evidence.

The Tribunal held that the transaction value was not rejected, and reliance on contemporaneous prices without providing detailed data was improper. Citing a Supreme Court ruling, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for a reasoned decision in accordance with law.

Therefore, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of following legal guidelines in valuation assessments.