2016 (11) TMI 338 - AT - Customs

Appellate Tribunal Rejects Retroactive Valuation Enhancement, Emphasizes Stability of Initial Import Terms

EMA India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (I), Nhava Sheva

The Appellate Tribunal, after considering arguments from both parties, held that the 20% valuation enhancement based on a subsequent agreement dated ... Valuation - addition on the value of imports on the basis of subsequent agreement - Held that: - the valuation was finalized in respect of import made in the year 1980-81 and the value declared by the appellant was accepted. Subsequently by the order-in-original, the value was revised and the 20% was loaded on the basis of the agreement dated 26.3.1996 for the subsequent period. Even though this agreement was entered into by the appellant with the foreign supplier, but this agreement has not changed the circumstances prevailing at the time of import by the appellant. Therefore, only on the basis of this agreement, the value could not have been enhanced for the previous import - enhancement of the value by 20% on the basis of subsequent agreement is illegal and cannot be sustained - appeal allowed. Issues: Valuation of imports for the year 1980-81 based on subsequent agreement dated 26.3.1996In this case, the primary issue revolves around the valuation of imports made in the year 1980-81, which was subsequently revised by adding 20% based on an agreement dated 26.3.1996. The appellant challenged this valuation enhancement before the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequently before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai.Analysis:The appellant contended that the valuation enhancement based on the agreement dated 26.3.1996 was incorrect as this agreement was unrelated to the imports made in 1980-81. The appellant argued that at the time of import in 1980-81, there was no agreement with the supplier, and the technical know-how agreement was only entered into in 1996. The appellant's representatives emphasized that the circumstances prevailing at the time of the initial import were not altered by the subsequent agreement, rendering the valuation enhancement invalid.The Revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner, supported the findings of the impugned order, which upheld the valuation revision based on the 1996 agreement. However, the Appellate Tribunal carefully considered the arguments presented by both sides and analyzed the facts of the case.The Tribunal noted that the valuation for the imports made in 1980-81 had been finalized with the appellant's declared value being accepted initially. Subsequently, the valuation was revised, adding 20% based on the 1996 agreement. The Tribunal concluded that the subsequent agreement did not impact the circumstances existing at the time of the initial import in 1980-81. Therefore, enhancing the value based solely on the 1996 agreement was deemed illegal by the Tribunal.In its final decision, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant. The Tribunal held that the 20% valuation enhancement on the basis of the subsequent agreement was unjustified and could not be upheld. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the circumstances prevailing at the time of import while determining valuation, highlighting the legal principle that subsequent agreements cannot retroactively impact past transactions.This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal intricacies involved in the valuation of imports and the significance of ensuring that valuation enhancements are based on relevant and contemporaneous agreements to maintain the integrity of import valuation processes.