TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 order on goods classification and valuation, ruling in favor of appellant</h1> The Tribunal set aside the original order in a case concerning the classification and valuation of imported goods. The dispute centered on the correct ... Classification of imported goods - Valuation - rejection of transaction value - Held that: - the impugned order records that appellant themselves imported similar items through Nhava Sheva three months before the present consignment. The authority reiterated that value difference of US$ 1.40 cannot be accepted and since goods are identical, applying Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules reassessed the same at unit price of US$ 14.63 - rejection of transaction value adequate and proper reason has to be adduced by the assessing officer. Considering that the imported goods are electronic items and price variation is in the range is only about 10%, there is no justification recorded in the original authority order for rejection and redetermination of assessable value. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues involved: Classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff and correct valuation for duty purpose.Classification Issue:The dispute in the case revolves around the classification of the imported External VGA Box. The appellant claimed classification under Chapter Tariff Heading 84733030 as 'other mounted printed circuit boards' under the main Heading 'Parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with machines of Heading 8469 to 8472.' On the other hand, the Revenue argued for classification under Heading 85299090 as 'others' under the main heading 'Parts suitable for use solely or principally with apparatus of Heading 8525 to 8528.' The original authority relied on the HSN Explanatory Note to determine the classification, ultimately deciding that the goods should be classified under Chapter 85 and not Chapter 84. However, the Tribunal found that the impugned goods, which are plug and play devices usable only with a computer monitor and not a TV monitor, should be classified under Chapter 84. The Tribunal noted that while the appellant's classification under subheading 84733030 was incorrect as it pertains to mounted printed circuit boards, the main heading 8473 is appropriate for the External VGA Box.Valuation Issue:Regarding the valuation of the imported goods, the original authority rejected the declared value of US$ 13.35, citing that the appellant had previously imported similar items through Nhava Sheva with a value of US$ 14.63. The authority reassessed the value based on the earlier import, applying Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules. However, the Tribunal found that there was no adequate reason provided for the rejection and redetermination of the assessable value. Considering the slight price difference of about 10% and the fact that the goods were imported three months apart, the Tribunal held that the original authority's decision lacked justification. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis and decision on the classification and valuation issues in this case resulted in setting aside the original order, providing relief to the appellant based on the specific nature and use of the imported goods and the lack of proper justification for the valuation decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
