2023 (12) TMI 1178 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - glass chatons - rejection of value in terms of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 - enhancement of value - contemporaneous imports as well as NIDP data not considered - HELD THAT - First of all, the Appellant has not been put to notice as to why the transaction value cited by him is not acceptable to the Department. After this, Rule 4 to Rule 12 of CVR, 2007 have to be followed sequentially to arrive at the value of the imported consignment. In this case, this procedure also was not followed. The NIDP data gathered by the Appellant for such identical/similar goods shows that the price adopted by the Appellant is actually more than the price at which the other importer has imported the goods. It is not found that the value arrived at by the Revenue is a realistic and legally sustainable value - impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Customs valuation u/s Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 - Enhancement of value based on Market Survey Report.

Customs Valuation Procedure:
The Appellant imported glass chatons from China and filed the Bill of Entry. The Appellant adopted specific rates for different varieties. The Department issued a Show Cause Notice questioning the value adopted by the Appellant u/s Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The Department revised the rates based on a Market Survey Report conducted by its officials.

Appellant's Submission:
The Appellant's Advocate argued that the Department did not follow the proper procedure in enhancing the value. He contended that the Department's method of market information gathering was not specified in the statute. The Advocate emphasized that the Department did not consider contemporaneous imports or NIDP data, and hence, requested the Appeal to be allowed.

Department's Argument:
The Authorized Representative of the Department supported the lower Authorities' findings. He stated that the officials gathered information on similar products traded in India and prepared a Market Survey Report. The Adjudicating Authority used this report to enhance the value of the imported goods, justifying the Customs Duty demand.

Tribunal's Decision:
After hearing both sides and examining the documents, the Tribunal observed that despite evidence of several imports of identical goods from China during the relevant period, the Department conducted a Market Survey. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the market survey process, including the lack of detailed purchase or sale invoices in the report. The Tribunal noted that the Department did not follow the sequential procedure from Rule 4 to Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Additionally, the NIDP data showed that the Appellant's price was higher than that of another importer for similar goods.

Conclusion:
Based on the factual analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the value determined by the Revenue was not realistic or legally sustainable. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned Order, allowing the Appeal with any consequential relief as per law. The decision was pronounced in open court on 27/09/2023.