2019 (11) TMI 256 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - determination of assessable value of imported aluminium waste and scrap - rejection of declared value - HELD THAT - The Commissioner (Appeal) has made open remand to the lower Adjudicating authority to decide the valuation depending on the contemporary import price available with the Department within three months from passing of the impugned order. At this stage, we find that large number of cases which has been cited by the ld. Advocate, have been decided by this Tribunal rejecting the transaction value adopted by the Department having contrary to Section 14(1) of Customs Act and the Customs Valuation Rules. The order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, NOIDA VERSUS M/S. SANJIVANI NON-FERROUS TRADING PVT. LTD. 2018 (12) TMI 738 - SUPREME COURT was not available before the Commissioner (Appeals). In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Determining assessable value of imported aluminum waste and scrap based on transaction value vs. departmental valuation under Customs Act and Valuation Rules.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against the Order setting aside the Adjudicating Authority's decision and remanding it for fresh consideration. The appellants contended that the assessment order disregarded the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, and Customs Valuation Rules. They argued that the transaction value declared satisfied the requirements of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act. The appellants also challenged the use of NIDB data for valuation and emphasized the need to follow Rule 12 of the Valuation Rules. They cited precedents where similar orders were set aside by the CESTAT. The Department justified the remand for reconsideration based on the departmental valuation.

The primary issue revolved around determining the assessable value of imported aluminum waste and scrap. The assessing officer rejected the declared price, relying on a Circular issued by the Directorate General Valuation. The appellants imported various consignments falling under specific tariff items and self-assessed them based on transaction value, which was rejected by the assessing officer. The appeals sought to uphold the declared price and challenged the remand order back to the adjudicating authority.

The Tribunal examined the impugned order and the submissions from both parties. It noted the open remand by the Commissioner (Appeal) to decide the valuation based on contemporary import prices. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' arguments against the departmental valuation and cited previous Tribunal decisions rejecting such valuations contrary to Customs Act provisions. The Tribunal highlighted the need for the Adjudicating Authority to consider relevant Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions while passing a fresh order on remand.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order, as the Supreme Court's judgment in a related case was not available to the Commissioner (Appeal). The Tribunal upheld the remand order but emphasized the importance of considering previous decisions in the fresh assessment. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed, and the impugned order was sustained, with the expectation that the Adjudicating Authority would consider relevant precedents in the fresh assessment following the remand directive.