Declared value on Imported Goods Rejected Solely Based on NIDB Data: CESTAT sets aside Order of Customs Commissioner [Read Order]

In a recent case, the Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs which rejected the declared value of Imported Goods solely based on NIDB Data.

M/s. Atlantis Trading Company, the petitioner challenged the Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirappalli. The assessee is aggrieved by the re-valuation of the impugned goods imported by it, by the Assistant Commissioner, vide Order-in original.

Dr S. Krishnanandh, Advocate appeared for the assessee and Shri Harendra Singh Pal, Assistant Commissioner appeared for the Revenue.

The assessee had filed a Bill-of-Entry bearing for the import of  990 Pcs of “Uber Brand Induction Cooker with 1 PCT Free Spare Parts Model No. UB001IC (2000W)” and  1170 Pcs of “Uber Brand Induction Cooker with 1 PCT Free Spare Parts Model No. UB002IC (2000W)” and the country of origin was China. 

The appellant had declared the unit value at USD 14.00 per piece CIF for the declared item “Uber Brand Induction Cooker with 1 PCT Free Spare Parts Model No. UB001IC (2000W)” and at USD 13.50 per piece for the declared item “Uber Brand Induction Cooker with 1 PCT Free Spare Parts Model No. UB002IC (2000W)”.

It appeared that the Assistant Commissioner entertaining a doubt as regards the declared value by the importer, having looked into the NIDB data wherein similar goods appeared to have been cleared at a higher rate and it was held that the declared value was liable for rejection and that the same was required to be re-determined at USD 20.70 per piece under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007.

In adjudication, the original authority proceeded to reject the declared value and re-determined the unit price solely based on the NIDB data. Other than this, there are no findings as to whether the declared value of the appellant was false or incorrect, or that any contemporaneous/actual imports suggested any discrepancy in the declared value, etc.

The appellant approached the first appellate authority, but the first authority rejected the appeal, thereby upholding the re-determined value by the original authority.

The Assistant Commissioner rejected the declared value solely based on the NIDB data. It was settled law that NIDB data cannot be the only basis for rejection of the declared value, which has been reiterated by various CESTAT Benches, including the Chennai Bench.

A two-member bench of Mr P Dinesha, Member (Judicial) and Mr M Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical)  prima facie satisfied that the Revenue has not made out a case firstly, for the rejection of the declared value and secondly, no case is either made out justifying re-determination of the same.

The CESTAT held that “the adjudicating authority was clearly in error in rejecting the declared value and then re-determining the same and hence, the impugned order is unsustainable for the above reasons. Hence, we set aside the impugned order.”

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates