2023 (5) TMI 307 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - PU Coated Fabric - rejection of declared value - value appears at lower side as compared to the NIDB data of similar imports at other ports and also contemporaneous import at the same port - HELD THAT - From the declaration given by appellant, it is apparent that the revised valuation has been accepted under duress just in order to save detention charge. It cannot be treated as a voluntary consent. In this circumstances the right of appellant challenge the assessment cannot be disputed. It is seen that the case law relied by the Commissioner (Appeal) in the impugned order is only in respect of cases where there was voluntary acceptance of the enhancements of value. From the impugned order, it is noticed that it has not examined the contemporaneous NIDB data, but relies solely on various letters of different authorities, like directorate of valuation, DRI or DC (SIIB). Such reports cannot be any basis of rejection of declared value in terms of rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The rejection can only be done on the basis of data of contemporaneous imports. Impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in this case are the rejection of declared transaction value by the Appellant and the subsequent enhancement of assessment value by the authorities without passing a speaking order.

Issue 1: Rejection of Declared Transaction Value

The Appellant had imported "PU Coated Fabric" from China and declared the transaction value as USD 0.82 per square meter, which was rejected. The Assessing officer questioned the low value compared to NIDB data of similar imports and contemporaneous imports at the same port. The Appellant agreed to assess the value as per group practice to avoid demurrage and detention charges. However, the value declared in the bills of entry was rejected, and the value was enhanced without a speaking order. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter back for a speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 2: Legal Considerations and Case Law

The Original Adjudicating Authority relied on various reports and instructions to determine the average price of USD 0.86 for PU Coated Fabric. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order, citing cases where once the enhanced value is accepted and duty is paid, the assessment cannot be challenged. However, the Appellant argued that the revised valuation was accepted under duress to avoid detention charges, not voluntarily. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the case laws cited apply to voluntary acceptance of enhanced value, not cases with apparent protest. The rejection of declared value should be based on contemporaneous imports, not just reports from authorities.

Decision:

The Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned order, stating that the rejection of declared value should be based on contemporaneous imports, not just reports from authorities. The appeals by the Appellant were allowed, and the impugned order was not upheld.