2024 (11) TMI 747 - AT - Customs

Reassessment of Bills of Entry by enhancing the value to USD 400 for all bills of entry - values were rejected by the AO to enhance the value from 4 per MT based on the data available with the NIDB - Appellant has imported shredded scrap during the period from 17.02.2015 to 05.03.2015 under 10 bills of entry declaring the value between USD 325 to 360 per MT.- HELD THAT - NIDB is the data of the Customs Department which gives values of various commodities based on various transaction values of different goods. Whether the invoice value can be rejected and the duty can be charged as per NIDB data without any specific evidence that the invoice values do not reflect actual transaction value ? - It has been held that the NIDB data can be a guideline for the customs to arrive at the value of the goods but the NIDB data cannot be applied directly unless the value given therein falls within the parameters of identical goods or similar goods. Relying on the decisions in the cases of Topsia Estates Pvt Ltd 2015 (1) TMI 750 - CESTAT CHENNAI , Nath International 2013 (12) TMI 1042 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , Impex Steel Bearing Co. 2014 (2) TMI 627 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and Eicher Tractors Ltd 2000 (11) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT it has been decided that the department cannot reject the declared value and assess the goods as per the NIDB data. Assessee appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against enhanced value of imported shredded scrap based on NIDB data.

Analysis:
The Appellant filed 9 appeals against the Order-In-Appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals-II) Customs & Central Excise, Noida, regarding the re-assessment of the value of shredded scrap imported under 10 bills of entry. The Custom Department enhanced the value to USD 400 per MT for all bills of entry, which was challenged by the Appellant. The Original Authority, in the remand, maintained the enhanced value, citing Rule 3(1) of valuation Rules. However, the Appellant contended that the value enhancement solely based on NIDB data was not justified without evidence of under-valuation or any other supporting proof.

The Original Authority, in its order, relied on previous decisions regarding the Department's powers to enhance value. It was noted that the Appellate Authority had directed the Original Authority to provide reasons for the value enhancement, but the Original Authority did not comply. The Appellate Tribunal emphasized that NIDB data cannot be the sole basis for value enhancement and that the declared value in the bill of entry should not be doubted without evidence of under-valuation.

The Tribunal highlighted that the NIDB data can be a guideline for customs to determine the value of goods but cannot be directly applied unless it aligns with identical or similar goods' parameters. The Tribunal referred to various cases to support this position. Additionally, the Tribunal cited a Supreme Court judgment upholding the decision that value enhancement solely based on NIDB data is impermissible without evidence contradicting the invoice value's accuracy.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals filed by the Appellant, granting consequential relief as per the law. The judgment was pronounced on 14.11.2024.