2024 (11) TMI 1011 - AT - Customs

Determination of transaction value - department said that the transaction value declared by respondents is not correct and therefore, they have enhanced the declared value and demanded the differential duty - HELD THAT - Even though the respondents had pointed out certain reservations about contemporaneous prices relied upon by the department, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not analyzed or made any specific observation on the submissions made by the respondent before the Commissioner (Appeals). It is noted that the queries raised by the department in relation to the impugned bills of entry as well as replies made thereto by the respondents are also not on record. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude as to what are the nature of replies and the grounds on which the department doubted the veracity of the declared transaction value and the defence taken by the respondents to justify the correctness of the transaction value. We find that the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) are not speaking orders and it has not considered certain factual matrix which has got bearing on the outcome of this case. Therefore, the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Original Assessing/Adjudicating Authority, who will give opportunities to the importer to produce all the evidence to justify the correctness of the declared transaction value in view of the queries raised by the Department.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against Orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside assessments based on declared transaction value in imports. Lack of speaking order by Assessing Officer. Commissioner (Appeals) not providing reasons for rejecting declared value. Absence of contemporaneous value of similar goods. Disagreement on necessity of speaking order for value revision. Lack of analysis by Commissioner (Appeals) on respondent's submissions.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the Department against Orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside assessments based on declared transaction value in imports. The Assessing Officer did not issue a speaking order at the time of assessment, which was a crucial point in the case. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the Department had not provided reasons for rejecting the declared value and did not present contemporaneous values of similar goods imported during the same period. The Commissioner (Appeals) also noted the absence of evidence showing the respondent's acceptance of the increased declared price or the issuance of a speaking order for rejecting and increasing the transaction value.

The main contention of the Department was that queries were raised by the assessing officer before enhancing the value, asking the importer to justify the declared transaction value and providing contemporaneous prices for similar goods. The respondent admitted receiving the queries and submitted replies justifying the declared value, paying duty under protest. The Department argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) incorrectly stated that no details were furnished before revising the transaction value, as queries were raised, and the respondent did not respond to them. The Department maintained that a speaking order was not necessary if the importer agreed to the revised value proposed by the Department, as the bill of entry itself could be appealed against.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not analyze the submissions made by the respondent or the queries and replies related to the impugned bills of entry. The Tribunal concluded that the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) were not speaking orders and lacked consideration of crucial factual aspects. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded the matter back to the Original Assessing/Adjudicating Authority. The Authority was directed to allow the importer to produce evidence justifying the declared transaction value in response to the Department's queries, and then make a decision on the rejection and redetermination of the value as per Customs Valuation Rules, passing a speaking order to justify the reassessment.

In conclusion, the appeals were remanded back to the Original Adjudicating Authority, and the Orders-in-Original (OIOs) were set aside, emphasizing the need for a speaking order and proper consideration of all evidence in such cases.