Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (9) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (9) TMI 543 - AT - Customs


Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of the imported goods.
2. Classification of the imported goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Valuation of the Imported Goods:

The Respondent imported Motor Controller and Electric Tricycle Spare Parts. The Assessing Officer reassessed the importation by enhancing the CIF value and rejecting the declared value of the goods. The Respondent cleared the goods under protest and requested an assessment order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority passed orders under Section 17(5), which the Respondent appealed against, leading the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the assessment orders and accept the declared value.

The Revenue argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate Rule 12(2)(iii) of the Custom Valuation Rules, 2007, which allows the proper officer to raise doubts on the declared value based on higher values of identical or similar goods imported around the same time. The Revenue contended that the transaction value could not be determined under Rule 3(1) of the CVR, 2007, and should be determined sequentially from Rule 4 to Rule 9. The Revenue also argued that the Respondent did not provide substantive documents to support their declared value.

The Tribunal found that the NIDB data relied upon by the Revenue showed the assessed value and not the declared value, making it unacceptable for enhancing the value. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly struck down the enhancement in price, citing that the valuation of similar goods depends on factors like country of origin, quantity, and quality, which were not considered by the lower authority. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, noting that the transaction value declared by the Respondent was genuine and there was no evidence of any additional payment over the invoice value.

2. Classification of the Imported Goods:

The Respondent classified the goods under Tariff Heading 8503 0090, which covers parts suitable for use solely or principally with the machines of heading 8501 or 8502. The Assessing Officer reclassified the Motor Controller under CTH 8708 9900, arguing that it was a separate device used for controlling various activities in an e-rickshaw, not just the motor.

The Tribunal observed that the Controller is used for functions connected to the motor, such as starting, stopping, and regulating speed, making it principally used with the motor. The Tribunal noted that the Controller could be employed in e-rickshaws only when attached to a motor, which has various usages beyond e-rickshaws. The Tribunal found no specific entry for the Controller in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and noted that the lower authority did not provide evidence that the goods were parts and accessories of e-rickshaws.

The Tribunal held that the goods imported by the Respondent were rightly classifiable under Chapter Heading 8503 0090, as they are parts suitable for use with electric motors. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision and upheld the classification of the goods under CTH 8503 0090.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s orders, rejecting the Revenue's appeals. The declared value of the imported goods was accepted, and the goods were classified under CTH 8503 0090. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates