In a recent case before Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) it was ruled that the re-valuing the imported goods by adopting contemporary value of imports as per NIDB data is justified.
Appellant M/s. Albany Molecular Research Hyderabad Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal against an order passed by the Respondent Commissioner of Customs on 24.12.2014, setting aside the impugned Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs ( SVB ) and directed the lower authority to issue orders after determining the value in terms of Customs Valuation Rules (CVR)
The Appellant was importing Diethylaminosulfur Trifluoride and Magnetic resonance from their parent company situated overseas, by availing benefit under Customs Notification no.52/2003 without payment of any duty.
Boost Your Earning Potential: Upskill in Tax and Finance
The department after examination of value of imports issued an Order-in-Original which declared that the transaction value of imports was accepted in terms of Rule 3(3) (a) of CVR. Aggrieved by this the department filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), cited that the value of imports was accepted in terms of Rule 3(3)(a) of CVR.
Aggrieved by this the department filed an appealed before CESTAT, which was set aside the Order-in-Original and also rejected the declared transaction value and remanded the matter to the lower authority for issuance of orders, after ascertaining the appropriate value in terms of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before CESTAT, Chennai .
The counsel for appellant represented by Advocate M Karthikeyan submitted that various fora had repeatedly held that in the absence of cogent evidence, mere NIDB data isn’t sufficient to prove allegations on undervaluation.
Boost Your Earning Potential: Upskill in Tax and Finance
The main issue in the appeal was regarding the re-valuing of the imported goods by revenue adopting contemporary value of imports as per NIDM data after rejection of declared values.
The appellants contention was that the impugned order had not adopted the computed value as per Rule 8 of CVR and the contemporary value of glass tubes through an unrelated supplier was ignored. The department insisted on the adoption of contemporary price reflected in NIDB data.
The transaction value should be admitted as the assessable value unless proved incorrect. To prove such values wrong independent evidence is required and mere reference to NIDA data is insufficient. Various courts had held that NIDA data cant be made the sole basis for enhancement of the value.
Boost Your Earning Potential: Upskill in Tax and Finance
The tribunal comprising Judicial member P Dinesha and Technical member Vasa Seshagiri Rao observed that there is no justification for enhancement of the transaction value based solely on the NIDA Data, that too without determining how the imported goods are comparable and contemporaneous in terms of quality, quantity, etc which affects the transaction value.
Therefore the impugned order was set aside and appeal was allowed.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
