2018 (3) TMI 781 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - various electrical and automobile parts - NIDB data for contemporaneous imports - price of similar goods - Held that - there is no valid reason cited in the impugned order for rejection of transaction value other than reference to NIDB data. The Bank attested invoice for supply of the goods is identical to the declared values. Revenue has not brought anything on record to indicate that any additional consideration has been paid by the importer for such goods - the transaction value is required to be accepted. The Adjudicating Authority has also reopened the assessment made in respect of 52 Bills of Entry filed in the past. The reason recorded in the impugned order is that in the past also the appellant has imported such goods. The Revenue has undertaken no investigation into the value of goods imported vide the 52 Bills of Entry - In the absence of any investigation into the value of the goods covered under these Bills of Entry, the transaction value already accepted cannot be interfered with. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Undervaluation of imported goods.
2. Rejection of declared values based on NIDB data.
3. Application of deductive method for valuation.
4. Reopening of assessments for past Bills of Entry.
5. Justification for differential duty demand.

Undervaluation of Imported Goods:
The appellant, engaged in importing electrical and automobile parts, filed bills of entry declaring goods like tyre valves, spray paint pump, etc. The Department found undervaluation and enhanced the value based on NIDB data and market enquiry. The goods covered by one bill were marginally undervalued, while for others, the assessable value was determined through the deductive method. The appellant disputed the enhancement, claiming the declared values matched manufacturer's invoices. The Tribunal noted that the declared values cannot be rejected solely based on NIDB data, citing legal precedents. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating the transaction value should be accepted.

Rejection of Declared Values Based on NIDB Data:
The Department rejected declared values due to higher NIDB data, conducting a market enquiry to determine assessable value. The appellant argued for acceptance of declared values supported by manufacturer's invoices. The Tribunal emphasized that transaction values must be accepted unless valid grounds exist for rejection. It highlighted that NIDB data alone cannot justify rejecting declared values, citing legal principles and decisions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the redetermination based on market enquiry.

Application of Deductive Method for Valuation:
The Department used the deductive method for valuation based on local market prices from two dealers. The appellant contested this method, presenting multiple invoices covering similar goods. The Tribunal noted the Department's reliance on deductive method and market enquiry but emphasized the importance of valid grounds for rejecting declared values. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the transaction value should be accepted unless supported by concrete evidence for rejection.

Reopening of Assessments for Past Bills of Entry:
The Department reopened assessments for 52 past Bills of Entry, alleging undervaluation. The appellant argued against the reopening, citing time limitations and lack of evidence of suppression. The Tribunal found the reopening unjustified, noting the absence of investigation into the values of past imports. It emphasized the need for clear evidence of misstatement or suppression to reopen assessments. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating the transaction value for past entries should not be interfered with.

Justification for Differential Duty Demand:
The Department demanded differential duty based on enhanced values and past assessments. The appellant challenged the justification, highlighting the acceptance of declared values and lack of evidence for reopening past assessments. The Tribunal, after reviewing arguments from both sides, ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

---

← Previous Next →