2018 (2) TMI 1268 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Transaction Value in PVC Import Appeal

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs And Service Tax Hyderabad-II Versus M/s RK Exports

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the order-in-appeal enhancing the value of imported PVC Flex Sheet Rolls. The appellate authority ... Valuation - enhancement of value of imported goods i.e. PVC Flex Sheet Rolls - contemporaneous imports - Held that: - in the absence of any contrary evidence to the finding recorded by the First Appellate authority, the Revenue's appeal is devoid of merits - respondent has filed cross-objections which are actually in support of the First Appellate Authority's order and has annexed various documents indicating the contract signed by them with the Chinese manufacturer/exporter and also the prices which have been offered to them. When these documents were produced before the First Appellate Authority, which have been considered by the said authority and the integrity and genuineness of the documents has not been contested by the Revenue in the appeal. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:Enhancement of value of imported goods based on contemporaneous imports without providing the importer an opportunity to contest the same.Analysis:The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an order-in-appeal regarding the enhancement of value of imported PVC Flex Sheet Rolls. The respondent had imported the goods and declared a specific value, which was later sought to be enhanced based on contemporaneous imports. The adjudicating authority assessed the bill of entry without providing the respondent an opportunity to contest the enhanced value. The First Appellate Authority set aside the order-in-original, upholding the respondent's contentions. The Revenue, in its grounds of appeal, cited Customs Valuation Rules and mentioned contemporaneous imports without annexing the relevant bill of entry with the appeal memoranda.The appellate authority in the impugned order noted that the lower authority rejected the transaction value without valid grounds. The imports were directly from the Chinese manufacturer, and the invoice value should have been considered as the transaction value. The department failed to provide any evidence contrary to the appellant's contention that payment was made through normal banking channels. Citing judicial pronouncements, the appellate authority emphasized that the department cannot reject transaction value arbitrarily. The appeal filed by the Revenue did not controvert the findings of the First Appellate Authority, rendering it devoid of merits. The respondent filed cross-objections supporting the First Appellate Authority's order, providing documents like the contract with the manufacturer and offered prices, which were not contested by the Revenue.In conclusion, the Tribunal found the appeal devoid of merits and dismissed it, along with the cross-objections filed by the appellant. The integrity and genuineness of the documents submitted by the respondent were upheld, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and cross-objections.