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>Tribunal overturns assessment, emphasizes adherence to Customs Valuation Rules for fair imports valuation.</h1> <h3>M/s. K.R. Srilaxmi Deals Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commr. of Customs, Kolkata</h3> The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellant, highlighting discrepancies in the assessment of the assessable value. The decision emphasized the ... Valuation - loading the assessable value on the basis of other brand of goods - Westride Brand - LingLong Brand - CIF value - whether or not first appellate authority has correctly loaded the assessable value of the Chinese origin tyres? - Held that: - No evidence is available on record that both the above brands of tyres of Chinese origin are having same qualities and market standards in China Identical goods and similar goods are defined in Rule 2 (c) & 2 (e) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Valuation) Rules, 1988. The decision in the case of M/s. Deekay Exports Vs. Commr. of Customs, Calcutta [1996 (9) TMI 401 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA] has been relied upon where it was held that a quantity of 18 MT of glycerine imported by M/s. Shalimar Paint cannot be held to be contemporary for import of 144 MT of glycerine imported by Appellant Deekay Exports. The case of C.C. New Delhi Vs. D.M. International [2013 (5) TMI 549 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] relied upon where it was held that quality, import of origin, place and time of import are relevant factors and NIDB data cannot be made the basis for enhancement of value. The quantity of tyres imported by the appellant is much more than the quantity imported in the relied upon bill of entry. Further independent Delhi importers have also imported China origin tyres at values lower than the value of relied upon bill of entry. The brand name of the tyres imported by the appellant is Linglong whereas the brand name in the relied upon Bill of Entry is Westride . There is no evidence on record that both these brands of Chinese origin are similar - loading the assessable value on the basis of other brand of goods not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues involved:Assessable value of Chinese origin tyres, comparability of imported goods, application of Customs Valuation Rules, contemporaneous evidence of pricing, relevance of quantity in imports.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Assessable value of Chinese origin tyresThe appellant challenged the loading of assessable value by the first appellate authority based on a Bill of Entry filed by another importer. The appellant argued that the goods imported by them were of a different brand and in higher quantities, questioning the justification for relying on a single Bill of Entry. The Tribunal noted the absence of evidence proving the comparability of the two brands, emphasizing the need for identical or similar goods as per Customs Valuation Rules.Issue 2: Comparability of imported goodsThe appellant presented evidence of contemporaneous imports of Chinese tyres by other importers at lower prices, which were disregarded by the lower authorities. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of justification for favoring one import over others, especially when the quantity and brand of the goods differed significantly. The Tribunal stressed the importance of considering all relevant imports to determine the assessable value accurately.Issue 3: Application of Customs Valuation RulesThe Tribunal referenced Rule 2(c) and 2(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, emphasizing the requirements for identical and similar goods. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to demonstrate the satisfaction of these conditions, especially regarding the comparability of the brands and quantities imported. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the proper application of the Valuation Rules to ensure a fair and accurate assessment of the goods' value.Issue 4: Contemporaneous evidence of pricingCiting previous judgments, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of contemporaneous evidence to challenge the declared transaction value. The Tribunal emphasized the need for concrete proof of overvaluation or discrepancies in pricing, which was lacking in the present case. The Tribunal reiterated the principle of accepting transaction value unless proven otherwise by contemporaneous evidence.Issue 5: Relevance of quantity in importsThe Tribunal considered the quantity of tyres imported by the appellant compared to the relied-upon Bill of Entry, emphasizing the significance of quantity in determining the assessable value. The Tribunal noted that the higher quantity imported by the appellant and the lower prices of contemporaneous imports by other Delhi importers raised doubts about the justification for loading the assessable value based on a single Bill of Entry.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellant, highlighting the discrepancies in the assessment of the assessable value and the failure to consider all relevant factors and contemporaneous imports. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the Customs Valuation Rules, comparability of goods, and the importance of contemporaneous evidence in determining the accurate assessable value of the imported goods.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
