2016 (11) TMI 904 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds declared value for CRNGO imports, rejects lower authorities' valuation.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in rejecting the declared value of Cold Rolled Non Grain Oriented Coils (CRNGO) imports. The impugned ... Valuation of CRNGO imported by the appellant - whether the rejection of the declared value/ transaction value only on the ground that there were contemporaneous imports of similar goods, justified? - Held that: - before rejecting the transaction value declared by the importer as incorrect or unacceptable, the Revenue has to bring on record some cogent material, which would indicate that the goods imported are comparable with the contemporaneous imports - It is also to be noted that there are no findings or allegation of the importer being in collusion with supplier for suppression of transaction value. The lower authorities have erred in rejecting the value declared by the appellant. We are of the considered view that the impugned order is unsustainable on the above reasoning. The impugned order is set aside upholding the value declared by appellant as correct transaction value and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any. Issues: Valuation of Cold Rolled Non Grain Oriented Coils (CRNGO) importsComprehensive Analysis:Issue 1: Valuation of CRNGO ImportsThe case involved appeals against an order enhancing the value of Cold Rolled Non Grain Oriented Coils (CRNGO) imported by the appellant. The appellant declared the value as USD $755, 760 & 791.20 PMT, but the adjudicating authority increased it to US $850 PMT. The appellant argued that the value was as per a sales contract backed by a letter of credit, and the authorities did not follow Valuation Rules. The Revenue relied on contemporaneous imports to enhance the value, which the appellant contested. The Hon'ble Apex Court's ruling in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Aggarwal Industries Ltd. was cited, emphasizing the need for cogent material to reject declared value. The Departmental Representative referred to Punjab Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs to support the authorities' actions.Issue 2: Contemporaneous ImportsThe lower authorities rejected the declared value based on contemporaneous imports, but the details provided were not matching with the material period of the appellant's imports. The Tribunal found the reliance on these details as misplaced and unacceptable. The Hon'ble Apex Court's ruling in Aggarwal Industries Ltd. emphasized the need for cogent material before rejecting declared value. The onus to prove undervaluation is on the revenue, and once evidence of contemporaneous imports at a higher price is provided, the burden shifts to the importer to establish the correctness of the invoice price.Issue 3: Legal Principles and PrecedentsThe Tribunal referred to Eicher Tractors Ltd. to explain the valuation of imported goods under Section 14(1) of the Act. It highlighted that unless the price paid falls within exceptions in Rules 4(2)(c) to (h), the Department must assess duty on the transaction value. The ruling in Rabindra Chandra Paul v. Commissioner of Customs was also cited. The Tribunal applied legal principles from previous cases to the facts at hand, emphasizing the importance of genuine transactions and absence of collusion between importer and supplier.ConclusionAfter considering submissions and records, the Tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in rejecting the declared value. The impugned order was deemed unsustainable, and the value declared by the appellant was upheld as the correct transaction value. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief, if any.