2017 (9) TMI 1141 - AT - Customs

Tribunal remands case for proper valuation determination under Customs Valuation Rules

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the original authority for a proper determination of the transaction value under ... Valuation of imported goods - Pneumatic Tools Accessories of various types - rejection of invoice value - deductive method of valuation - Rule 7 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 - Held that: - Admittedly, the price-list of the main appellant as displayed in their Website for trading of imported products in India is the main basis. While applying the provisions of Rule 7, it is necessary that the parameters mentioned therein are to be adhered to - In the present case, there is no discussion at all regarding the legal provisions of Rule 7 and the method of arriving at the deductive value in terms of the said Rule. The matter is remanded back to the original authority, who will decide the basis of rejection of transaction value and also re-determination of the transaction value if required in terms of the applicable provisions of Section 14 read with valuation rules - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues: Valuation of imported goods under Rule 7 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007Issue 1: Correctness of valuation under Rule 7The main appellant imported Pneumatic Tools Accessories and declared an assessable value. The lower authorities re-determined the value under Rule 7 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, resulting in a differential duty. The appellant contested this re-determination as arbitrary, based on the sale price in the Indian market. The appellant argued that various discounts provided were not considered, making the valuation inaccurate.Issue 2: Application of Rule 7 and methodologyThe authorized representative of the importing company accepted the re-valuation based on the Department's chart using the main appellant's data. The appellant's payment of the differential duty for clearance was cited as a basis for confirming the re-assessed value under Rule 7. However, the appellant challenged this methodology, emphasizing that the payment to expedite clearance did not validate the re-assessed value under Rule 7. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting the lack of discussion on the legal provisions of Rule 7 and the method of arriving at the deductive value. The Tribunal found the lower authorities had not considered the appellant's arguments adequately, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and remanding the matter for a re-assessment based on applicable provisions.ConclusionThe Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the original authority for a proper determination of the transaction value under Rule 7. The appellant will have the opportunity to present their case, ensuring a fair assessment in accordance with the valuation rules. The appeals were allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the legal provisions and conducting a thorough analysis before determining the assessable value of imported goods.