The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), rejected the enhancement of value on basis of National Import Database (NIDB) data on the allegation that the goods are of contemporaneous import.
The appellant, Sedna Impex India P Ltd, filed various Bill of entry seeking clearances of 100% Non-Textured Polyester Lining Falling under chapter CTH 54076190 and Mix Lot of 100% Polyester Knitted Fabrics falling under CTH 60053200 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, originating from China and declaring the price.
The original adjudicating authority considering the representation issued order and rejected the value declared by the appellant and re-determined the value of goods as per NIDB data under Rules of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and assessed bills of entry.
Therefore, the appellant challenged the assessment before the Commissioner (Appeals) and has also claimed the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-CE dtd. 19.07.2014 as amended by Notification No. 34/2015-CE dated. 17.07.2015. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of original adjudication authority.
Jatin Mahajan, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the lower authorities have erred in invoking the provisions of Rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 which is precursor for rejection of declared value and that NIDB data cannot be the sole ground for rejection of the transaction value without any evidence to prove that the goods under import have been undervalued.
Dinesh M. Prithiani, Assistant Commissioner (Authorized Representative) appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and original adjudication authority.
The Coram comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Raju, Technical Member observed that “In the present import without carrying out any test to the fact that goods of contemporaneous import and the goods in question in present case are identical or similar, enhancement of the value is not legal and correct. It is also observed that other than contemporaneous import data, there is no other evidence to show that the assessee have suppressed the value.”
The Tribunal also noted that in the present cases, there is no such evidence produced by the Revenue except reference to the NIDB data. In view of the discussions above, we hold that in the present case, the enhancement of value on the basis of NIDB data cannot be accepted.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
