2020 (11) TMI 85 - AT - Customs

Tribunal emphasizes Customs Valuation Rules in remand decision, stresses procedural fairness in customs cases.

M/s. KRYFS Power Components Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva

The Tribunal remanded the case for de novo adjudication, emphasizing the proper application of Customs Valuation Rules. It found that the original ... Valuation of imported goods - CRGO of different grades, viz., M3/M4/M5 etc - rejection of declared value - enhancement of value based on the contemporaneous higher import price of the similar goods made by the other importer - HELD THAT:- On perussal of the description/grade/quantity of the impugned goods mentioned in the said order dated 16.10.2012, we find that the original authority had referred to the description as CRGO-M3, M4, M5 etc. Whereas, on comparison of the said description with other particulars mentioned in the original order vis-à-vis the import documents, viz., Bills of Entry, Purchase Order etc., we find that the reference of such goods are not figuring in all the cases in the import documents presented by the appellant for assessment before the department. Thus, we are of the considered view that the original authority had not referred to the contemporaneous import in the proper manner as prescribed under Rule 5 ibid. The matter should go back to the original authority for appreciation of the facts to the effect that the subject goods imported by the appellant were liable for rejection and the value can be redetermined by referring to the relevant provisions of the Valuation Rules, 2007 - Appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:1. Rejection of declared value and re-determination under Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.2. Contemporaneous import price reference for value determination.3. Similarity of imported goods for valuation purposes.4. Proper application of Valuation Rules by the original authority.Issue 1: The judgment deals with the rejection of declared value and re-determination under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The appellant imported CRGO of various grades and filed Bills of Entry for assessment. The department rejected the declared value under Rule 12 and re-determined it under Rule 5. The appellant argued that the rejection was unjustified as the goods were not similar as defined under Rule 2(f) and the declared value should be considered for duty assessment. The Tribunal found that the original authority did not properly refer to contemporaneous imports as required by Rule 5. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication, emphasizing the need for proper examination of import documents to determine if goods were identical and compliance with Valuation Rules.Issue 2: The judgment discusses the use of contemporaneous import prices for value determination. The department justified the rejection of declared value based on similar goods imported at a higher price by another importer. However, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the original authority's reference to contemporaneous imports and emphasized the proper application of Rule 5 for such comparisons. The Tribunal remanded the matter for a fresh assessment based on correct interpretation and compliance with Valuation Rules.Issue 3: The judgment addresses the question of similarity of imported goods for valuation purposes. The appellant argued that the goods were not similar as claimed by the department, citing differences in quantity, origin, and specifications. The Tribunal agreed that proper assessment of similarity is crucial for valuation under the Rules. The matter was remanded for the original authority to determine if the goods were indeed similar and for the appellant to provide supporting evidence.Issue 4: The judgment evaluates the proper application of Valuation Rules by the original authority. The Tribunal found deficiencies in how the original authority referred to contemporaneous imports and assessed the similarity of goods. Emphasizing the need for a correct application of the Rules, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication, ensuring the appellant's right to a personal hearing. The judgment also rejects the argument that value determination should be based on transaction value rather than NIDB data value, aligning with previous tribunal decisions.In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of proper application of Customs Valuation Rules, accurate assessment of similarity of imported goods, and adherence to procedural requirements for value determination in customs cases.