2019 (3) TMI 1102 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds Customs duty, penalties in appeal challenging assessment value.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal challenging duty liability, enhanced assessment value, and penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs. The ... Validity of Best Judgement Valuation - enhancement of assessable value - branded goods - identical/similar goods - Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - Held that:- The imported goods are said to be unbranded and, therefore, devoid of any scope for comparison with prices of identical or similar goods. The lower authorities have also held, without being controverted by the importer, that the goods in question were ordered by, and belong to, the present appellant whereas the documents were filed by another entity. In these circumstances, the declared value is undoubtedly in breach of the parameters that govern acceptance of transaction value in section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 mandating recourse to Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules 2007. It is also clear that the absence of any comparable data is also beyond question. The appellant has also not brought forth any evidence of existence of such data. The appellants had not made out a case for discarding of the best judgment value adopted in the order of the lower authority and accepted by the first appellate authority. A challenge in that direction at the second appeal stage is not tenable - appeal dismissed. Issues:Challenge to duty liability, enhancement of assessment value, confiscation of imported goods, penalty imposed, compliance with Customs Valuation Rules.Analysis:The appeal challenged the duty liability, enhanced assessment value, and penalties imposed based on an order by the Commissioner of Customs. The appellant argued that the enhancement of the assessable value did not comply with the Customs Valuation Rules of 2007. The contention was that the Customs Valuation Rules were not followed properly, specifically regarding the time period for market survey and invoking rule 7 directly. The appellant cited previous Tribunal decisions to support their argument.The Tribunal found that the imported goods were unbranded, making it challenging to compare prices with similar goods. It was noted that the goods were ordered by the appellant but filed under a different entity, indicating a discrepancy. The declared value did not meet the criteria for acceptance under the Customs Act, necessitating recourse to the Customs Valuation Rules of 2007. The absence of comparable data further weakened the appellant's case.The first appellate authority upheld the original authority's decision, relying on rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules of 2007, which did not have a strict time-frame limitation. The market survey was deemed valid based on this rule. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to present a compelling argument to challenge the best judgment value determined by the lower authorities, which was accepted by the first appellate authority. As a result, the appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.In summary, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the proper application of Customs Valuation Rules, the validity of the market survey, and the adequacy of evidence presented by the appellant. The decision highlighted the importance of complying with valuation rules and providing substantial evidence to support any challenges to duty liability and assessment values.