2017 (11) TMI 1440 - AT - Customs

Tribunal overturns order on 'Refrigerant 134A' transaction value, citing lack of justification.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order rejecting the transaction value for 'Refrigerant 134A' declared by the appellant, citing discrepancies in ... Valuation of imported goods - contemporaneous import of similar goods through other port - Held that: - In the present case, the reason being contemporaneous import of similar goods through other port, in such situation full particulars of other imports are to be examined and made available to the appellant also - In view of non-fulfilment of such requirement, reassessment order suffers from serious infirmity - it is a settled position of law that in terms of Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962, the transaction value is required to be accepted. The valuation relating to Valuation Rules can only be done when the transaction value is rejected for valid reasons. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Eicher Tractors Ltd. Vs CC Mumbai [2000 (11) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the Tribunal held that transaction value cannot be rejected on the basis of availability of data value for contemporaneous import of similar goods. This may at best raises a suspicion on the transaction value but cannot form basis for refixing the value. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Rejection of transaction value based on similar imports, Non-compliance with Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.Analysis:1. The appellant filed Bills of Entry for 'Refrigerant 134A' with declared values varying from Rs. 56 to Rs. 167. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued for reassessment due to alleged incorrect value declaration. The original authority rejected the earlier assessed value and confirmed a higher value, imposing a differential Customs duty and a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.2. The appellant contested the rejection of transaction value and argued that Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 were not followed. The counsel highlighted that no evidence disproving the declared value was presented, and the legal provisions were not adhered to. The appellant also emphasized the necessity of supporting documents for reassessment under Rule 8, citing relevant Tribunal decisions.3. The respondent opposed the appeal, asserting that the rejection of transaction value was justified due to discrepancies in payment documents and high sea sales. It was argued that adopting values from similar imports through Nhava Seva was appropriate under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, with no legal flaws in the impugned order.4. Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal scrutinized the documents and the impugned order. The Tribunal noted significant price variations in the imported goods over different months and emphasized the lack of detailed information on Nhava Seva imports. The reassessment lacked justifiable reasons and failed to provide full particulars of other imports, leading to serious infirmities. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the requirement to accept transaction value unless valid reasons exist for rejection, rejecting the basis of contemporaneous import data for reassessment.5. Consequently, the Tribunal found the impugned order lacking legal justification for reassessment and set it aside, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief as per law.