9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 628 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - Motor Controller and different types of Electric Tricycle Spare Parts - enhancement of CIF value - rejection of declared value - classification of the item imported - Motor Controller - to be classified under CTH 8503 0090 or under CTH 8708 9900? - HELD THAT - The same issue in respect of the same appellant came up to be decided by this Bench in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) VERSUS M/S. AAHANA COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED 2024 (9) TMI 543 - CESTAT KOLKATA . The Bench has held that ' the controllers are not covered under the CTH 8708 as per the explanatory notes to Section XVII. It is also pertinent to note that the Notes to CTH 8503 covers the parts to be used with motor and as such merits the classification of the goods under CTH 8503. Thus, we hold that the goods imported by the Respondent are rightly classifiable under Chapter heading 8503 0090 as claimed by them in the respective Bills of Entry.' The Revenue Appeals dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of imported goods. 2. Classification of imported goods. Detailed Analysis: 1. Valuation of Imported Goods: The primary issue revolves around the enhancement of the CIF value of the imported Motor Controller and Electric Tricycle Spare Parts by the Assessing Officer. The Respondent cleared the goods under protest and sought an assessment order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority passed the orders, which were later contested by the Respondent before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) examined the issue and set aside the orders of assessment, accepting the value declared by the Respondent. The Revenue, dissatisfied with this decision, appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that the enhancement of value by the adjudicating authority was based on NIDB data, which showed the assessed value and not the declared value. The Tribunal noted that the NIDB data is not exhaustive and does not necessarily reflect the declared value by the importer. The Tribunal cited the case of Prayas Woollens Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC Import Mumbai, where it was held that enhancement of price without evidence is baseless. The Tribunal further emphasized that the valuation of similar goods depends on various factors such as country of origin, quantity, and quality, which were not adequately considered by the lower authority. The Tribunal also referenced the case of Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt. Ltd. versus C.C.E. & S.T., Noida, which highlighted the necessity of a detailed examination of evidence for enhancing the assessable value. The Tribunal found that the lower authority did not follow the due procedure under Section 14 of the Customs Act and the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, making the enhancement arbitrary and non-maintainable. The Tribunal concluded that the transaction value declared by the Respondent should be accepted, as there was no evidence to suggest that the declared value was not genuine or that the buyer and seller were related. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to accept the transaction value declared by the Respondent. 2. Classification of Imported Goods: The second issue pertains to the classification of the imported Motor Controller. The Respondent classified the goods under CTH 8503 0090, which covers parts suitable for use with electric motors. The adjudicating authority reclassified the goods under CTH 8708 9900, considering them as parts of motor vehicles. The Tribunal examined the functions of the Motor Controller, which include starting and stopping the motor, selecting forward or reverse rotation, and regulating speed. The Tribunal observed that these functions are connected to the motor, making the controller principally used with the motor. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the controller is rightly classifiable under CTH 8503. The Tribunal also addressed the department's argument that the controller is a separate device used for controlling various activities, including the motor. The Tribunal noted that the controller cannot perform its functions without the motor and that the motor has various usages, not limited to e-rickshaws. The Tribunal highlighted that there is no specific entry for the controller in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and that the goods imported by the Respondent do not fulfill the description under CTH 8708. The Tribunal found that the lower authority did not provide evidence that the goods are parts and accessories of e-rickshaws. The Tribunal concluded that the correct classification of the goods is under CTH 8503 0090, as claimed by the Respondent. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision on both issues. The enhancement of the CIF value was found to be arbitrary and without proper basis, and the classification of the Motor Controller under CTH 8503 0090 was deemed correct. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
|
