9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 617 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - Cyanuric Chloride - rejection of the value declared for the purpose of the import - revenue relied upon NIDB and contemporaneous import data - HELD THAT - From the NIDB and contemporaneous import data relied by the revenue, it is seen that the maximum import is of 108 MT vide bill of entry No. 4552563. In the said case the import has happened at Rs. 136.52 per kg. In the same table. It is also seen that, for a quantity of 15 tons imported roughly at the same time, the price assessed was Rs. 159.89 per kg. From the above, it is seen that for a small variation for import quantity from 20 tons to 108 tones, there is a price variation from Rs. 150.89 per kg. to Rs. 136.52 per kg. In the instance case, the price negotiated is for 2000 MT does not appear to be out of place. The appellant has submitted data which indicates out of 2000 MT, they had imported 1128 MT during 15-7-2019 to 3-1-2020. Moreover, it is seen that no evidence other than NIDB data has been cited in the proceedings by the lower authorities. In these circumstances, the quantity imported by the appellant is significantly different from the quantity listed in NIDB data relied by the revenue and therefore, the two cannot be compared in this circumstances. There are no merit in the orders the said order is set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues:
Appeal against the rejection of the declared value for import of Cyanuric Chloride from China. Analysis: The appellant, M/s. Meghmani Industries Ltd., filed an appeal against the rejection of the declared value for the import of Cyanuric Chloride from China. The appellant declared a unit price of USD 1.55 per kg in the bill of entry, which was revised by the assessing officer to USD 1.9 per kg due to comparison with contemporaneous imports of the same product. The appellant argued that they obtained a competitive price due to a bulk order of 2000 MT, resulting in a better rate compared to smaller quantity buyers. The Tribunal noted that the original adjudicating authority considered data of contemporary imports at ICD-Khodiyar, highlighting price variations for different quantities imported. The Tribunal observed that the appellant's import quantity of 2000 MT significantly differed from the quantities in the NIDB data relied upon by the revenue, leading to a conclusion that the two sets of data could not be compared under the circumstances. The Tribunal found that the appellant's import quantity of 2000 MT and the price negotiated did not seem out of place when considering the price variations for different import quantities as per the NIDB and contemporaneous import data. The appellant provided evidence showing they imported 1128 MT during a specific period, further supporting their argument. It was noted that no evidence other than NIDB data was presented by the lower authorities during the proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the quantity imported by the appellant was significantly different from the quantities in the NIDB data, leading to the decision that a comparison between the two sets of data was not appropriate in this case. In the final decision, the Tribunal did not find any merit in the previous orders rejecting the declared value. The Tribunal set aside the said order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 9-1-2024.
|
