2024 (9) TMI 1180 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Rules in Favor of Importer: Valuation of Porcelain Tiles Must Be Based on Declared Value, Not NIDB Data Alone.

M/s. Thai Impex Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Cochin

M/s. Thai Impex Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Cochin - TMI Issues: Valuation of imported porcelain vitrified tilesThe judgment pertains to an appeal regarding the valuation of imported porcelain vitrified tiles. The appellant imported tiles from China and alleged undervaluation, leading to the assessment of the bills of entry being adjusted based on information from NIDB showing higher prices for similar goods imported from China. The adjudication authority initially held that once goods are assessed and duty is paid, the assessment attains finality under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act. The appellate authority upheld the assessment, stating that the value adopted by the assessing officer was based on similar goods from other countries during a comparable period. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the valuation method was not in accordance with the law, and no justification was given to reject the declared value. The appellant cited various legal precedents to support their argument, contending that the Revenue failed to provide evidence of any amount paid over the transaction value. The appellant also disputed the adoption of NIDB data for valuation, emphasizing that identical goods for comparison were not available, and details of imports were not considered by the adjudication authority.The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties. It noted that the assessment attaining finality could be challenged under Section 128 of the Customs Act, as established in a judgment by the Supreme Court. Regarding the adoption of NIDB data for valuation, the Tribunal referred to previous cases where it was held that the department must substantiate the comparability of values based on NIDB data with contemporaneous prices. The Tribunal emphasized that NIDB data alone cannot justify the rejection of declared value, especially without providing details necessary for comparison. The Tribunal concluded that the enhancement of value without following proper procedures and legal principles was unjustified. Therefore, the declared value should be adopted for assessment. The appeals were deemed sustainable and allowed with any consequential relief, if applicable, in accordance with the law.