2024 (9) TMI 1180 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported porcelain vitrified tiles - adoption of value from NIDB data - assessment attained finality - HELD THAT - As regards the finding of appellate authority that the assessment attained finality and cannot be challenged in appeal the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon ble Supreme court in the matter of ITC LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE KOLKATA -IV 2019 (9) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT where it is held that in case any person is aggrieved by any order which would include self-assessment he has to get the order modified under Section 128 or under other relevant provisions of the Act. Thus the appellant has got legal right to challenge the assessment order under Section 128 of the Customs Act 1962. Adoption of NIDB data - HELD THAT - It is the settled position of law that NIDB data cannot be the only basis for rejection of the declared value. There is no justification to compare the goods imported by different importers. Even as per the Order-in-Original adjudication authority held that the goods are not branded goods and identical goods are not available for comparison. There is no admissible evidence forthcoming in the impugned order to reject the transaction value. Further the details of such imports other than the Bill of Entry number were neither furnished to appellant and there is no mention regarding the said value as lowest among contemporaneous import to ascertain whether such import can be considered as contemporaneous import to reject the declared value. Thus enhancement of value is made without following the law laid down by Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules 2007. Hence declared value has to be adopted for assessment. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported porcelain vitrified tiles

The judgment pertains to an appeal regarding the valuation of imported porcelain vitrified tiles. The appellant imported tiles from China and alleged undervaluation, leading to the assessment of the bills of entry being adjusted based on information from NIDB showing higher prices for similar goods imported from China. The adjudication authority initially held that once goods are assessed and duty is paid, the assessment attains finality under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act. The appellate authority upheld the assessment, stating that the value adopted by the assessing officer was based on similar goods from other countries during a comparable period. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the valuation method was not in accordance with the law, and no justification was given to reject the declared value. The appellant cited various legal precedents to support their argument, contending that the Revenue failed to provide evidence of any amount paid over the transaction value. The appellant also disputed the adoption of NIDB data for valuation, emphasizing that identical goods for comparison were not available, and details of imports were not considered by the adjudication authority.

The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties. It noted that the assessment attaining finality could be challenged under Section 128 of the Customs Act, as established in a judgment by the Supreme Court. Regarding the adoption of NIDB data for valuation, the Tribunal referred to previous cases where it was held that the department must substantiate the comparability of values based on NIDB data with contemporaneous prices. The Tribunal emphasized that NIDB data alone cannot justify the rejection of declared value, especially without providing details necessary for comparison. The Tribunal concluded that the enhancement of value without following proper procedures and legal principles was unjustified. Therefore, the declared value should be adopted for assessment. The appeals were deemed sustainable and allowed with any consequential relief, if applicable, in accordance with the law.