2018 (2) TMI 1334 - AT - Customs

Customs Department's Value Rejection Ruled Unjustified; Appeals Allowed

M.S. Agarwal Foundries Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCCE & ST, Hyderabad-I

The Tribunal held that the Customs Department's rejection of declared values and enhancement based on NIDB data lacked legal basis. The Department failed ... Valuation - enhancement of value - contemporary prices in NIDB data - Customs authorities took the view that declared values not being based on manufacturer's invoices, hence declared values are required to be enhanced to USD 430 per tonne (or Euro 401/378/385 etc.) based on contemporary prices in NIDB data. Held that: - the invoices issued by the traders from countries like Belgium, Malaysia, Singapore etc. cannot be dismissed peremptorily unless there are justifiable reasons not to accept the genuineness or authenticity of such invoices. In any case, the declared values can be rejected only in terms of statutory provisions and rules governing valuation of imported goods - It is now well settled that NIDB data cannot be made the basis for enhancement of declared import values. Department has not brought out any other material to demolish the transaction value and has also not brought any evidence to prove that the overseas supplier has been paid consideration higher than the amount indicated in the invoices which have been paid through bank channels. Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of declared invoice values for imported MS Steel (turning shredded scrap).2. Justification for the enhancement of declared values by Customs authorities.3. Application of NIDB data for valuation enhancement.4. Compliance with Customs Valuation (Determination of value of imported goods) Rules, 2007.5. Adherence to principles of natural justice.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Declared Invoice Values:The appellants, M/s Agarwal Foundries Pvt. Ltd. (AFPL) and Agarwal Foundries (AF), filed bills of entry for clearance of MS Steel (turning shredded scrap) with declared invoice values ranging from USD 245 to 281/Euro 219 to 235 per MT. Customs authorities rejected these declared values, asserting they were based on traders' invoices rather than manufacturers' invoices, and thus required enhancement to USD 430 per MT based on NIDB data. The appellants argued that MS scrap is procured from traders, not manufacturers, and there was no evidence of any extra amount paid to overseas exporters beyond the invoice value.2. Justification for Enhancement:The Customs Department enhanced the declared values to USD 430 per MT, citing contemporary import values from NIDB data. The appellants contended that the enhancement lacked proper justification and was done without adhering to the principles of natural justice. They argued that the Customs Department did not provide evidence that the transaction values were incorrect or that higher consideration was paid to the overseas exporters.3. Application of NIDB Data:The Tribunal noted that the enhancement of values was solely based on NIDB data, which was not provided to the appellants. It was emphasized that NIDB data cannot be directly applied for value enhancement unless it pertains to 'identical goods' or 'similar goods.' The Tribunal referenced multiple case laws, including Topsia Estates Pvt. Ltd Vs. CC (Import-Seaport) Chennai and CC, New Delhi Vs. Nath International, which established that NIDB data alone is insufficient for rejecting declared values without clear evidence.4. Compliance with Customs Valuation Rules, 2007:The Tribunal found that the Customs Department did not follow the Customs Valuation (Determination of value of imported goods) Rules, 2007, particularly Rule 12, which requires proper justification for rejecting transaction values. The Department failed to provide evidence that the declared values were not genuine or that the overseas suppliers were paid more than the invoice amounts.5. Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice:The Tribunal observed that the Customs authorities did not follow the principles of natural justice, as they did not provide the appellants with the NIDB data used for value enhancement or any other material evidence to justify the rejection of declared values. The appellants' contention that the declared values were genuine and based on market rates was not disproven by the Department.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the Customs Department's rejection of declared values and subsequent enhancement based on NIDB data were not legally sustainable. The Department did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the enhancement or to prove that the transaction values were incorrect. The Tribunal set aside all impugned orders related to the 14 appeals, allowing the appeals with consequential reliefs as per law. The judgment emphasized the need for adherence to statutory provisions, proper justification for value enhancement, and compliance with principles of natural justice.