2024 (5) TMI 818 - AT - Customs

Valuation of export goods - Iron Ore Fines - transaction value - FOB price - Export duty - contemporaneous exports - corroborative evidence - HELD THAT - Only when the Revenue doubts the transaction value and then follows the Valuation Rules sequentially before adopting the contemporaneous value, we can take the view that Department has the correct approach. In this case, such a situation has not arisen. The Learned AR relies on the case law Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt Ltd., Vs CCCE ST, Guntur 2018 (10) TMI 223 - CESTAT HYDERABAD also goes into these aspects. In that case, the Tribunal has held that after rejecting the value under Rule 8 the Adjudicating Authority is required to go through the Rules 4 to 6 in a sequential manner which was not done and hence the matter was remanded. On the other hand, in this present case, the Adjudicating Authority has not rejected the transaction value and infact has taken the view that it has correctly reflected as per the documentary evidence placed. The Department was not agitated by the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and no further Appeal was filed by the Revenue. Hence the issue of transaction value being correct has reached finality. Thus, we allow the appeal with consequential reliefs, if any, as per law.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the determination of transaction value for the purpose of export duty on Iron Ore Fines imported by the appellant. The primary issue is whether the transaction value declared by the appellant is acceptable or if the value should be determined based on contemporaneous exports.

Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad heard the appeal regarding the import of 10,000 WMT of Iron Ore Fines by the appellant, with a Fe content of 60%. The export was conducted under Shipping Bill No.005069 dated 14.10.2010, and the assessment was initially provisional. The appellant declared a unit price of USD 97.00 PDMT FOB, with a provision for additional payment if the Fe content increased by 1%. The Adjudicating Authority reviewed the documentary evidence provided by the appellant, including Bank Realization Certificate and final invoice, and found no evidence of mis-declaration of value. However, based on contemporaneous exports at USD 139.3 PMT, the Authority directed the appellant to pay a differential export duty of Rs. 6,27,949/-.

The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the decision. Subsequently, the appellant approached the Tribunal challenging the assessment. The appellant argued that unless the Revenue disputes the transaction value with corroborative evidence of receiving additional amounts, the declared value should stand. Citing relevant case laws, the appellant contended that the transaction value should be considered for ad valorem export duty.

On the other hand, the Authorized Representative for the Revenue acknowledged that the appellant received payment as per their invoices but highlighted the provision for the Adjudicating Authority to consider contemporaneous exports for valuation. Referring to a specific case law, the Representative supported the lower authorities' decision to rely on a different unit price for assessment.

After considering the arguments and case laws presented by both sides, the Tribunal observed that the Adjudicating Authority did not doubt the transaction value declared by the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that unless the Revenue questions the transaction value and follows valuation rules sequentially, adopting contemporaneous value is not warranted. As the Revenue did not challenge the transaction value and no further appeal was filed, the Tribunal concluded that the transaction value determination had reached finality. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant with any consequential reliefs as per law.