9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 966 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - Slack Wax/Residue Wax - enhancement of value based on the NIDB data, based on assumptions and presumptions - no evidence that the value cited by the Appellant is not the transaction value - HELD THAT - The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the decision of this Bench in DEEP JYOTI WAX TRADERS P. LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF CUS. (APPEALS) , KOLKATA 2018 (5) TMI 1917 - CESTAT KOLKATA where it was held that ' it appears that the quantities of the slack wax and residue wax is based on the oil contents itself. The oil contained 20% - 40%, which is helpful in determination of the price of the wax. The price of oil in international market is not established. This aspect was not examined before rejecting the valuation declared by the appellants.' The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the enhancement of values and reassessed all the bills of entry at declared values. There are no reason to interfere with the detailed and considered order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal of Revenue dismissed.
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the case are the enhancement of value of imported goods based on NIDB data, rejection of declared value by the Department, and the application of Valuation Rules u/s 14. Enhancement of Value based on NIDB Data: The Appellant imported "Slack Wax/Residue Wax" under 24 Bills of Entry, with the value being enhanced based on NIDB data. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that value cannot be enhanced on assumptions and presumptions without evidence that the Appellant's declared value is incorrect. The Revenue contended that the value adopted by the Appellant was lower according to NIDB data, justifying the enhanced value for Customs duty. However, the Respondent argued that the Department failed to provide evidence that the transaction value was incorrect and did not follow Valuation Rules sequentially. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the assessing officer rejected transaction values without valid reasons, violating section 14 and Valuation Rules, and set aside the enhancement of assessable values, directing assessment at the values declared by the Appellant. Rejection of Declared Value by the Department: During the period under consideration, the appellants imported slack wax and residue from UAE and Iran, but the declared value was rejected by the Department. The Department enhanced the value without proper examination, leading to the filing of appeals by the appellants. The appellants argued that the rejection lacked substantial grounds, especially considering that no prices were disturbed in other cases with similar imports. The Tribunal observed that the Department failed to compare quantities properly and lacked substantial evidence for the rejection, as required by legal precedent. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing all the appeals and reassessing the bills of entry at declared values. Application of Valuation Rules u/s 14: The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly set aside the initial assessment of the Customs authorities, emphasizing the importance of following Valuation Rules and providing valid reasons for rejecting declared values. The Tribunal, after considering the factual details and legal precedents, found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner's order, ultimately dismissing the Appeal filed by the Revenue.
|
