9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 696 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - Polyurethane Sealant - enhancement of value only on the basis of the appellant s acceptance letter whereby the price was enhanced 5 times of the declared value - HELD THAT - The value of imported goods has been enhanced solely on the basis of acceptance letter dated 26.07.2018 given by the appellant - this issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of CMR Nikkei India Pvt. Ltd 2022 (8) TMI 114 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD where it was held that ' in spite of the admission on behalf of the importer, the Revenue is required to satisfy the requirements prescribed under Section 14 of the Customs Act read with Customs Valuation Rules before any enhancement of valuation.' It is found that except the acceptance letter by the appellant no contemporaneous import price has been relied upon on the basis of documentary evidence. Therefore, there is no reason to enhance the value. Accordingly, both the orders of the lower Authorities are incorrect and illegal in the light of the settled legal position. As regards the reliance placed by the revenue in the case of Sukhdev Exports Overseas Vs. Commissioner of Custom (Preventive), New Delhi 2023 (2) TMI 1038 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , it is found that in that judgment the fact is that the assesse had accepted the price in statement given under Section 108 of the Customs Act. However, there is no such statement under Section 108 recorded in the present case. Therefore, the decision of Sukhdev Exports Overseas Vs. Commissioner of Custom (Preventive), New Delhi 2023 (2) TMI 1038 - CESTAT NEW DELHI carrying different facts is not applicable in the present case. The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues:
1. Enhancement of value of imported goods solely based on acceptance letter. 2. Legality of value enhancement without relying on contemporaneous import price. 3. Requirement of satisfying Customs Act and Valuation Rules for enhancement of value. 4. Applicability of previous tribunal decisions in similar cases. 5. Distinction of facts in cited case for reliance by the Revenue. Analysis: 1. The judgment revolves around the appellant's appeal against the enhancement of the value of imported goods, which was done solely based on the acceptance letter provided by the appellant. The appellant contended that the value was increased from 0.25 US $ to 1.25 US $ without proper basis, compelling them to accept the price. 2. The appellant argued that the enhancement of value was illegal and incorrect as no contemporaneous import price was relied upon for the valuation. They cited previous tribunal decisions, including CMR Nikkei India Pvt. Ltd and Century Metal Recycling Pvt Ltd, to support their claim that mere acceptance by the importer cannot be the sole reason for enhancing the value. 3. The Tribunal analyzed the Customs Act and Valuation Rules, emphasizing that the Revenue must satisfy the requirements prescribed under Section 14 of the Customs Act before enhancing the valuation of imported goods. The Tribunal highlighted that the assessment orders did not adhere to the provisions of Section 14 and the Customs Valuation Rules, failing to provide a valid basis for the re-assessment. 4. Referring to previous tribunal decisions, the Tribunal reiterated that the Revenue must follow valuation rules and provide sufficient cause to enhance the value if the declared price by the appellant is deemed incorrect. The judgment emphasized the importance of following legal procedures and rules in determining the assessable value of imported goods. 5. The Tribunal distinguished the facts of the case cited by the Revenue in Sukhdev Exports Overseas Vs. Commissioner of Custom (Preventive), New Delhi, noting that the absence of a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act in the present case made the cited decision inapplicable. The judgment highlighted the need for factual relevance in legal precedents relied upon in different cases. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the necessity for the Revenue to satisfy legal requirements and provide a valid basis for enhancing the value of imported goods, rather than solely relying on the importer's acceptance letter.
|
