2024 (1) TMI 1087 - AT - Customs

Importer wins appeal as Revenue fails to prove contemporaneous imports were comparable for PTFE tape valuation under Customs Valuation Rules 2007

CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal challenging valuation of imported PTFE Thread Seal Tape. The Revenue alleged declared value was not on par with ... Valuation of imported goods - PTFE Thread Seal Tape - correctness of the declared value which were alleged to be not on par with the contemporaneous imports in other ports - HELD THAT:- Nothing is said about the commercial level and the quantity involved in those transactions to conclusively establish that the so-called contemporaneous imports were in fact of ‘similar goods’ within the meaning of Rule 2(f) ibid. Having alleged about the contemporaneous imports, the adjudicating authority could have at least brought on record or in the Order-in-Original the details of the alleged contemporaneous imports, mere mentioning of dates and Ass. Value is not a sufficient compliance with the requirements of the statute. So also, with regard to the so-called market survey done behind the back of the appellant, nothing apparently is placed on record and hence, both the so-called alleged contemporaneous imports and the market survey is to be ignored. Moreover, the requirements of the statute are that the imports should be of identical or similar goods and such imports should be at or about the same time as the import in question. This Bench in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S. SREE RAJENDRA TEXTILES [2023 (8) TMI 265 - CESTAT CHENNAI] has considered in depth the issue of re-valuation of imported goods on the basis of contemporaneous imports and held the lower adjudicating and assessing authorities have to necessarily consider all the commercial factors to arrive at contemporaneous prices of identical or similar goods before resorting to enhancement of the declared transaction values in terms of Rule 4 or Rule 5 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. The ratio of the above order is clear, the re-valuation attempted by the Revenue has been set at naught for lack of merits by the Bench. There are no justifiable reasons to sustain the impugned order - appeal allowed. Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment are the correctness of the declared value of imported goods, re-valuation under Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules, and the justification for enhancing the declared value.Declared Value Issue:The appellant, an importer of 'PTFE Thread Seal Tape,' filed a Bill-of-Entry which raised doubts about the declared value compared to contemporaneous imports. The original authority re-valued the goods under Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules, leading to an appeal by the importer challenging the enhanced value.Contemporaneous Imports and Re-Valuation:The main issue for consideration was whether the Revenue was justified in re-valuing the declared value of the disputed goods. The appellant argued that the declared value rejection lacked basis and violated principles of natural justice as details of alleged contemporaneous imports were not shared. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority failed to establish the similarity of goods in the alleged contemporaneous imports, and the market survey conducted was not substantiated. Citing precedent cases, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of considering all commercial factors before enhancing declared values.Judgment:After hearing both sides and examining the documents, the Tribunal concluded that there were no justifiable reasons to uphold the impugned order. The re-valuation by the Revenue was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law.Separate Judgment:The judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Mr. P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial), and Hon'ble Mr. M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical) on January 23, 2024.