2020 (3) TMI 1011 - AT - Customs

Valuation - assessable value of imported goods - Aluminium scrap - rejection of declared value - HELD THAT - Reliance placed in the 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 where it was held that The Tribunal has clearly mentioned that this declared price could be rejected only with cogent reasons by undertaking the exercise as to on what basis the Assessing Authority could hold that the paid price was not the sole consideration of the transaction value. Since there is no such exercise done by the Assessing Authority to reject the price declared in the Bills of Entry, Order-in-Original was, therefore, clearly erroneous. Inasmuch as, the Appellate Authority has relied upon the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of M/s Sanjivini Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt. Ltd. and the revenue in their memo of appeal have not given any valid reason to deviable from the said decision, we find no justifiable reasons to interfere in the impugned order - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Dispute over assessable value of imported goods

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD, the issue revolved around the assessable value of imported goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) had granted relief to the respondent based on the lack of evidence supporting the allegations made in the show cause notice regarding the material of the goods. The appellant contested the findings, arguing that the allegations were not sustainable due to the absence of evidence. The rejection of the transaction value of decorative light and the adoption of a higher value for duty assessment were also challenged. The Tribunal noted that the Appellate Authority had relied on a decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case, emphasizing the need for the assessing officer to provide reasons for rejecting the transaction value. The revenue failed to provide valid reasons to deviate from the Supreme Court's decision, leading the Tribunal to reject the revenue's appeal and dispose of the stay petition.

The Tribunal highlighted the importance of following the provisions of the Act and Valuation Rules, particularly Rule 12, which outlines the procedure to be followed when there are doubts about the declared value of imported goods. The adjudicating authority was criticized for not appreciating these provisions and arbitrarily enhancing the value based on a general alert from the DRI. The Tribunal emphasized that the transaction value should be considered for duty assessment unless there is concrete evidence to prove otherwise. It referenced the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision, which stressed the necessity for the assessing officer to justify the rejection of the transaction value with supported reasons and material. Since the revenue failed to provide valid reasons to challenge the Appellate Authority's decision based on the Supreme Court's ruling, the Tribunal upheld the relief granted to the respondent and rejected the revenue's appeal.

Overall, the judgment underscores the significance of adhering to the statutory provisions and established legal principles in determining the assessable value of imported goods. It emphasizes the need for assessing officers to provide clear justifications supported by evidence when deviating from declared transaction values, as outlined in the relevant laws and judicial precedents. The Tribunal's decision serves as a reminder of the procedural requirements and evidentiary standards that must be met in customs valuation disputes to ensure fair and lawful assessments.