2019 (12) TMI 344 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - Mixed 100% Polyester Knitted Fabrics (Rolls of Assorted Colors) - enhancement of the value by the Assessing Officer was done only on the ground that the declared value is substantially low as compared to the value of the contemporaneous imports - HELD THAT - There is nothing new in the present appeal particularly for the reason that the assessee has waived the SCN, therefore, there was no occasion for the Assessing Officer to provide the detail of contemporaneous imports to the assessee, however, it is also fact that the appellant was not provided the data/documents for contemporaneous imports - matter requires remand. Exemption from CVD - benefit of N/N. 30/04-CE - benefit was denied on the ground that the notification was not claimed at the time of assessment of the Bills Of Entry - HELD THAT - Since, the same was legally due to the assessee, the Assessing Officer should have extended the benefit of CVD exemption. Since, the appeal was filed against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee was free to raise all the claim which is legally otherwise available to them at the time of clearance of the goods - the denial of CVD exemption only on the ground that the assessee have not claimed the said exemption in the bills of entry is not justified. The matter should be re-considered in respect of both the issues of valuation and exemption notification in respect of CVD - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of imported goods compared to contemporaneous imports
2. Claim of exemption from CVD under Central Excise Notification No. 30/04-CE

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported Polyester Knitted Fabrics from China and declared a unit price in the bills of entry. The Customs department found the declared value substantially low compared to contemporaneous imports. The Assessing Officer re-determined the value at USD2.20 per KG under Rule CVR, 2007. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the enhancement of valuation but denied CVD exemption claim as it was not initially claimed. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer should have provided documents of contemporaneous imports to the appellant. The matter was remanded for re-consideration, emphasizing the need for a de-novo order with a fair opportunity for the appellant.

2. The appellant appealed the denial of CVD exemption under Notification No. 30/04-CE. The Tribunal held that since the exemption was legally due, the Assessing Officer should have granted it, even if not claimed initially. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) and directed a re-consideration of the exemption claim along with the valuation issue. The Assessing Officer was instructed to provide all relevant documents to the appellant and ensure a fair hearing before issuing a new order.

This judgment highlights the importance of fair assessment practices, providing necessary documents to parties, and allowing legitimate exemptions even if not initially claimed. The Tribunal's decision to remand the case for re-consideration aims to ensure a just outcome based on all relevant factors and legal entitlements.