2019 (6) TMI 1544 - AT - Customs

Customs Department Must Provide Evidence to Reject Invoice Values; NIDB Data Insufficient for Duty Assessment.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appellant's appeals. It emphasized that the customs department cannot reject declared invoice ... Valuation of imported goods - Pig Iron - rejection of declared value - enhancement of value based on the data available with the NIDB - whether the invoice value can be rejected and the duty can be charged as per NIDB data without any specific evidence that the invoice values do not reflect actual transaction value? - HELD THAT:- Relying on the decisions in the cases of Topsia Estates Pvt Ltd v. CC (Import-Seaport) Chennai [2015 (1) TMI 750 - CESTAT CHENNAI], CC New Delhi v. Nath International [2013 (12) TMI 1042 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], Impex Steel & Bearing Co. v. CC Delhi-IV [2014 (2) TMI 627 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and Eicher Tractors Ltd v. CC Mumbai [2000 (11) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT] it has been decided that the department cannot reject the declared value and assess the goods as per the NIDB data. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:- Rejection of declared value of imported pig iron- Application of NIDB data for determining customs duty- Validity of rejecting invoice value without specific evidenceAnalysis:1. Rejection of Declared Value: The appellant imported pig iron with declared values ranging from USD 229 to USD 300 per MT. The assessing officer enhanced the value to USD 500 per MT based on NIDB data. The primary issue was whether the invoice value could be rejected without specific evidence that it did not reflect the actual transaction value.2. Application of NIDB Data: The NIDB, a Customs Department database, was used to determine the value of goods. The Tribunal examined whether the NIDB data could be directly applied to assess duty, especially when the invoice values were disputed. The decision highlighted that NIDB data could serve as a guideline but could not be applied unless the values aligned with identical or similar goods parameters.3. Legal Precedents: The Tribunal referred to various legal precedents to support its decision. Citing cases like Topsia Estates Pvt Ltd v. CC (Import-Seaport) Chennai, CC New Delhi v. Nath International, Impex Steel & Bearing Co. v. CC Delhi-IV, and Eicher Tractors Ltd v. CC Mumbai, it emphasized that the customs department could not outright reject declared values and assess goods solely based on NIDB data.4. Judgment: The Tribunal found the issue in the present appeals identical to a previous decision and upheld the principle established in that case. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals of the appellant were allowed. The Tribunal's decision provided relief to the appellant by rejecting the application of NIDB data to determine customs duty, emphasizing the importance of specific evidence in value assessment.In conclusion, the judgment focused on the proper application of NIDB data in customs valuation, highlighting the need for concrete evidence to reject declared values. By aligning with established legal principles, the Tribunal provided clarity on the assessment process, ensuring fairness and consistency in customs duty determination.