TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Challenge to Import Value Enhancement Rejected by Tribunal, Emphasizing Evidence & Customs Rules</h1> <h3>CC, ICD, TKD Versus M/s POLYGLASS ACRYLIC MFG CO LTD</h3> CC, ICD, TKD Versus M/s POLYGLASS ACRYLIC MFG CO LTD - 2014 (301) E.L.T. 545 (Tri. - Del.) Issues Involved:1. Enhancement of the value of imported PU coated fabric.2. Rejection of transaction value.3. Contemporaneous import value and expert opinion.4. Reliance on previous Tribunal decisions.5. Guidelines from Mumbai Customs House.6. Comparison with other imports.7. Acceptance of enhanced value without protest.8. Legal basis for enhancement of assessable value.Detailed Analysis:1. Enhancement of the Value of Imported PU Coated Fabric:The Revenue was aggrieved by the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the enhancement of the value of imported PU coated fabric. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the Revenue did not provide any argument for rejecting the transaction value, which should be accepted as per Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules. The Commissioner noted the absence of contemporaneous import value, expert opinion, or imports by another importer to justify the enhancement.2. Rejection of Transaction Value:The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the Supreme Court decision in Eicher Tractors Ltd. vs. CC (2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC)), which held that the transaction value cannot be rejected without clear and cogent evidence regarding the quality, origin, and time of import. The department failed to produce any evidence or show any special relationship between the importer and the supplier to justify the rejection of the transaction value.3. Contemporaneous Import Value and Expert Opinion:The Revenue referred to imports made at ICD, Tughlakabad, and Nhava Sheva, but these imports varied in thickness and did not show that the goods were identical in quality, origin, or manufacturer. The Commissioner (Appeals) found no contemporaneous import value or expert opinion to support the enhancement.4. Reliance on Previous Tribunal Decisions:The Tribunal, in a similar case (CC, New Delhi vs. M/s. D. M. International), rejected the Revenue's appeal by emphasizing that rejection of transaction value and enhancement of assessable value must be based on evidence. The Tribunal held that NIDB data cannot be the basis for enhancement and that the transaction value must be rejected based on legally permissible grounds as per the Valuation Rules.5. Guidelines from Mumbai Customs House:The Revenue referred to a guideline from the Mumbai Customs House (letter F.No.S/26-Misc-57/2005-1111 dated 27.3.2006), which was also considered in the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. D. M. International. The Tribunal noted that the customs have the power to reject the transaction value and enhance the assessable value, but this must be supported by evidence.6. Comparison with Other Imports:The Revenue provided examples of assessments at various ports for PU coated fabrics of different thicknesses, showing uniformity in assessment based on the Mumbai Customs House letter. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that these comparisons did not justify the enhancement as they did not consider the identical nature, quality, and origin of the goods.7. Acceptance of Enhanced Value Without Protest:The respondent accepted the enhanced value and paid the customs duty without any protest. The Board's Circular No. 90/2003-Cus dated 14.10.2003 states that it is not necessary to issue a speaking order in cases where the importer agrees to the enhancement based on higher contemporaneous values noticed in NIDB.8. Legal Basis for Enhancement of Assessable Value:Member (Technical) argued that the enhancement was based on sufficient evidence, including thickness details and Bill of Entries from various ports. The Commissioner (Appeals)'s order was deemed vague and predetermined. The Member (Technical) referenced the Calcutta High Court judgment in M/s Atma Ram Aggarwal and Tribunal decisions in M/s Varun Overseas and M/s Techno Marketing, which supported uniformity in valuation based on guidelines from a nodal agency like the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai.Separate Judgments:- Member (Judicial): Rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the lack of evidence and reliance on the Tribunal's previous decision in M/s. D. M. International.- Member (Technical): Allowed the Revenue's appeal, citing sufficient evidence for enhancement and the importance of uniform valuation guidelines.- Third Member: Agreed with Member (Judicial), stating that the enhancement of value by the assessing authority was not sustainable and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order.Final Order:In view of the majority decision, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
