2019 (1) TMI 1511 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - rejection of declared value - Section 12(1) of Customs Valuation (determination of value of imported goods) Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Appellants drew our attention to the amendment dated 14.10.2010 made in sales contract dated 29.07.2010 by which the quantity has been reduced to 12000 kgs and final destination of import has also been changed to Nhava Sheva Port - Revenue submitted that the amendment dated 14.10.2010 was not brought to the notice of the learned Commissioner - Held that - The amendment dated 14.10.2010 has a bearing on the issue involved and therefore without going into the merits of the matter, the matter is remanded back to the learned Commissioner to decide it afresh, after looking into all the documents produced by the Appellants and in particular the amendment dated 14.10.2010 and also after hearing the Appellants on all the issues/points. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of declared value under Customs Valuation Rules.
2. Impact of an amendment on sales contract.
3. Remand of the matter for fresh decision.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Customs rejecting the declared value under Customs Valuation Rules. The Appellants argued that the Commissioner did not consider an important amendment made in the sales contract, which reduced the quantity and changed the final destination to Nhava Sheva Port. The Commissioner based the rejection on the Purchase Order and Sales Contract mentioning a different destination, ICD Nagpur. The Appellants contended that if the amendment had been considered, the order would not have been passed in the same manner.

2. The Tribunal acknowledged the significance of the amendment dated 14.10.2010 in the sales contract. They emphasized that this amendment had a direct impact on the issue at hand. Without delving into the merits of the case, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Commissioner. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to reconsider the case, taking into account all documents provided by the Appellants, especially the crucial amendment dated 14.10.2010. The Tribunal also instructed the Commissioner to hear the Appellants on all issues and points before making a fresh decision.

3. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, indicating that a new decision should be made after a thorough review of all relevant documents and considerations. The judgment was pronounced in court on 11/01/2019, signifying the resolution of the case through a remand for a fresh determination by the Commissioner of Customs.