9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 447 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - enhancement of value based on DGOV Circular No. Val/Tech/25/2013 dated 07.08.2013 and thereby applying the NIDB data - Held that - Identical issue decided in the case of M/S. SRR INTERNATIONAL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS MUNDRA 2018 (12) TMI 392 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD where it was held that The assessable value of the goods i.e. PU Belts is enhanced by the customs authorities mainly on the basis of DGOV Circular which is not an authority to dispute the valuation of the imported goods. It was also held that the NIDB data is also of no basis and relevant to the present case. The enhancement of the value of imported goods and consequential differential duty demand is not legal and correct - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Alleged undervaluation of imported goods. 2. Reliance on DGOV Circular and NIDB data for valuation. 3. Lack of evidence for contemporaneous imports. 4. Absence of proper market enquiry. 5. Legal basis for enhancement of assessable value. Detailed Analysis: 1. Alleged Undervaluation of Imported Goods: The appellants were accused by the Customs Department of undervaluing imported ordinary belts (PU Belts). The department enhanced the declared value based on DGOV Circular and NIDB data, demanding differential duty. 2. Reliance on DGOV Circular and NIDB Data for Valuation: The Customs Department used DGOV Circular No. Val/Tech/25/2013 dated 07.08.2013 and NIDB data to justify the enhancement of the value of imported goods. However, it was found that the DGOV Circular is not an authoritative basis for disputing the valuation of imported goods. The tribunal noted that no contemporaneous bill of entry was provided to support the enhanced value. 3. Lack of Evidence for Contemporaneous Imports: The tribunal emphasized that the Customs Department failed to present any bill of entry for contemporaneous imports to substantiate the enhanced value. It was not demonstrated that the goods compared were of the same quality, quantity, and origin. The tribunal cited the Supreme Court’s decision in CC, Calcutta vs. South India Television Pvt. Limited, which mandates that the charge of under-invoicing must be supported by evidence of prices of contemporaneous imports of like goods. 4. Absence of Proper Market Enquiry: The tribunal found that the Customs Department did not conduct a proper market enquiry as required. There was no Panchanama or authenticated market survey report on record. The tribunal referenced the case of Selection Enterprises vs. CC, Chennai, where it was held that enhancing assessable value without adhering to principles of natural justice and without providing market enquiry details to the importer is unsustainable. 5. Legal Basis for Enhancement of Assessable Value: The tribunal reiterated that enhancement of assessable value must be based on cogent evidence. In the absence of such evidence, the declared value should be accepted. The tribunal referred to the case of Om Drishian International Limited vs. CCE, New Delhi, where it was held that assessable values cannot be fixed by the assessing officer on their own without following the proper legal provisions. Conclusion: The tribunal concluded that the enhancement of the value of imported goods and the consequent differential duty demand were not legal and correct. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed, following the precedent set in the case of M/s. SRR International. The tribunal emphasized the need for proper evidence and adherence to legal procedures in valuation disputes.
|
