2010 (4) TMI 518 - AT - Customs

Perfumes - Classification - Valuation - the appellant has disputed both the classification and valuation. According to them, the goods are classifiable under CTH 3303.00 and not under CTH 9616.10. Held that - perfumes and scents imported without spray mechanism cover under heading 33.03 of Custom Tariff Act, 1975. scents, spray with mounts under head for spray covered under heading 96.16.10. Factual position admitted by appellant under section 108 of Act. View taken by authorities below on classification issue is sustainable. On the issue of valuation the matter is remand back.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under CTH 9616.10 and valuation of goods under Rule 8(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.

Classification Issue Analysis:
The appellant imported perfumes in spray-packs and disputed the classification under CTH 9616.10. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs assessed the goods under this classification and loaded their value under Rule 8(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The appellant argued that the goods should be classified under CTH 3303.00. However, the Tribunal found that perfumes imported in containers with a spray mechanism fall under CTH 9616.10, while perfumes without a spray mechanism are covered under CTH 3303.00. The appellant admitted the factual position of importing goods in containers with a spray mechanism, leading to the classification under CTH 9616.10. The Tribunal upheld the classification based on the Customs Act and previous entries in the Customs tariff schedule.

Valuation Issue Analysis:
Regarding the valuation of the goods, the Tribunal found insufficient reasoning in the impugned order for loading the value by 160%/100%. The lower appellate authority did not provide cogent reasons for the valuation adjustment. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not adequately explain the decision and directed a fresh assessment of the valuation issue. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper justification and evidence in determining the valuation. The lower appellate authority was instructed to reconsider the valuation, allowing the appellant to present relevant documents and evidence for a fair assessment. The Tribunal remitted the valuation issue to the lower appellate authority for a detailed examination and a speaking order after providing the appellant with a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the classification of the imported goods under CTH 9616.10 but directed a reevaluation of the valuation issue, emphasizing the importance of providing clear reasoning and allowing the appellant to present evidence for a fair assessment. The appeal was disposed of with the valuation matter being remitted to the lower appellate authority for a comprehensive review and decision.