The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the transaction value of imported goods cannot be rejected only on the basis of the National Import Database (NIDB) data of similar goods because NIDB data do not show the import of comparable goods.
Himalaya Tractor Company, the appellant assessee was a registered partnership firm that imported tractor parts in lots from China the assessee filed nine Bills of Entry for home consumption which were assessed to duty and the proper officer of Customs had passed orders for the clearance of goods.
The assessee appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for confirming the Customs Duty demand and for the imposition of penalty along with the interest.
Sudhir Mehta, the counsel for the assessee contended that there was no discussion in the order on the parts which was sought to be compared and the part imported by the assessee and without discussion the transaction value had been rejected and the value had been loaded based on show cause notice without looking into their reply.
Also submitted that the adjudicating authority decided the goods imported in bulk could be treated as branded goods where only part number and logo were mentioned for identification purposes and such goods cannot be treated as branded merely because the logo was mentioned.
S. Debnath, the counsel for the department relied on the decisions made by the lower authorities and contended that the goods imported through the Bills of Entry were also branded goods as evidenced by the goods seized from the godown.
The Bench observed that the adjudicating authority had adopted the value of comparable goods available in NIDB data to demand duty on the goods cleared under the Bills of Entry and the transaction value cannot be rejected only based on the NIDB data because NIDB data do not show the import of comparable goods.
The two-member bench comprising Muralidhar (Judicial) and Anpazhakan (Technical) held that rejection of the value declared by the assessee based on NIDB data on similar goods was not sustainable.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
