2024 (8) TMI 270 - AT - Customs

Customs authorities cannot reject declared transaction value without proving fake invoices or non-payment

METALLOYS RECYCLING LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD

CESTAT Ahmedabad held that customs authorities cannot reject declared transaction value of imported goods without finding invoices fake or proving ... Valuation of imported goods - rejection of declared value - declared value of imported goods was lower than the contemporaneous import of similar goods - enhancement of value on the basis of contemporaneous import data of similar goods - HELD THAT:- There is no finding of the Ld. Authorities that the invoices issued by suppliers are fake or fabricated and that the transaction value shown therein has not been actually paid by the Appellant. Since the transaction value is determinable under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Rule 3(1) of the Valuation Rules, the question of resorting to assessment under Rule 5 does not arise. The transaction value declared in the instant case has been rejected without the sanction of law, hence not sustainable. It is also found that in number of case it was held by the Tribunal and courts that only NIDB data cannot be a basis for enhancement of value. It has been held that the NIDB data can be a guideline for the customs to arrive at the value of the goods but the NIDB data cannot be applied directly unless the value given therein falls within the parameters of identical goods or similar goods. The rejection of the transaction value and enhancement of the value by the department in this case are not sustainable in law. Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside - Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Rejection of declared value of imported goods.2. Enhancement of assessable value based on contemporaneous import data.3. Compliance with Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.4. Validity of transaction value and its rejection.5. Use of NIDB data for value determination.Detailed Analysis:1. Rejection of Declared Value of Imported Goods:The appellant imported Aluminium Scrap and filed multiple Bills of Entry. During verification, it was noticed that the declared value was lower than the contemporaneous import of similar goods. The assessing officers re-assessed the imported goods on an enhanced value basis. The Adjudicating authority upheld this enhancement, and the Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the rejection of the declared value in most cases but accepted it in one instance.2. Enhancement of Assessable Value Based on Contemporaneous Import Data:The appellant argued that the declared value should be accepted as it was consistent with previous imports under the same contract from the same supplier. They provided evidence of contemporaneous imports at similar or lower values. The department, however, relied on higher value imports for re-assessment. The Tribunal noted that the department must provide cogent reasons for rejecting the declared value and must demonstrate that the transaction value was not the actual price paid.3. Compliance with Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962:Section 14 of the Customs Act mandates that the assessable value should be based on the price actually paid unless it is proven otherwise. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not follow the proper procedure under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, which requires a sequential approach from Rules 4 to 9 after rejecting the declared value.4. Validity of Transaction Value and Its Rejection:The Tribunal emphasized that the transaction value must be accepted unless there is evidence to show that the price is not the sole consideration or the buyer and seller are related. The department failed to provide such evidence. The Tribunal cited several judgments, including Eicher Tractors Ltd. and South India Television Pvt. Ltd., which support the principle that the transaction value should be accepted unless proven otherwise.5. Use of NIDB Data for Value Determination:The Tribunal noted that NIDB data alone cannot be the basis for enhancing the value. It can serve as a guideline but must fall within the parameters of identical or similar goods. The Tribunal found that the department did not adequately justify the use of NIDB data in this case.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the rejection of the transaction value and the enhancement of the value by the department were not sustainable in law. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.Judgment Pronounced:The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 25.07.2024.