2019 (6) TMI 1355 - AT - Customs

Tribunal emphasizes proper justification in valuation, sets aside orders, follows legal precedents

M/s Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. Versus C.C. ICD – New Delhi

The Tribunal set aside the orders enhancing the value of imported goods, emphasizing the need for proper justification in rejecting declared transaction ... Valuation of imported goods - Aluminium waste as raw material for self consumption - rejection of declared value - enhancement of value of imported goods based on contemporaneous imports of NIDB data - HELD THAT:- The appellant is a regular importer and have given the consent for clearance of the goods. On identical facts in the appellant own case for earlier period CENTURY METAL RECYCLING PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [2019 (5) TMI 1152 - SUPREME COURT] it was held that the adjudication order in original is flawed and contrary to law for it does not give cogent and good reason in terms of Section 14(1) and Rule 12 for rejection of the transaction value as declared in the bill of entry. The order in original is not in accordance with Section 14 and Rules 3 and 12 as the mandate of these provisions has been ignored. The enhancement of value is to be set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Challenge to enhancement of value in imported goods.Analysis:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Aluminium Alloy, regularly imported Aluminium waste as raw material. The imported goods' value was enhanced based on contemporaneous reports and LME price, to which the appellant consented. Later, the enhancement was challenged before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal, leading to the current appeals.The appellant's counsel argued that the Hon'ble Apex Court had set aside a similar order in the appellant's own case for the demand period, indicating that the impugned orders should also be set aside.On the other hand, the Ld. AR contended that the assessing officer doubted the accuracy of the declared value due to abnormal discounts, shifting the burden of proof to the importer. The value was rejected under Rule 12(1) of CVR, 2007, and re-determined under Rule 3(4) by following Rule 9 of CVR, 2007, based on LME data with reasonable flexibility. Several legal precedents were cited to support the upheld enhancement of transaction value.After hearing both parties, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had previously faced similar issues with customs authorities coercing them to agree to enhanced valuation. The Tribunal referenced the Hon'ble Apex Court's observations on the requirements of Rule 12 and found flaws in the original adjudication order for not providing sufficient reasons for rejecting the declared transaction value. The order was set aside and quashed, emphasizing the importance of following Section 14 and Rules 3 and 12.The Tribunal clarified that Valuation Alerts should guide but not interfere with assessment authority's discretion. It emphasized that declared valuation can be rejected based on valid reasons, and each case should be examined individually. Following the precedent set by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the appellant's own case, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals with consequential relief, if any.