Ker HC to Municipal Corp.: Provide Complaint No. to Citizens to Report Unauthorized Waste Dumping  ||  JKL HC: Can’t Fastened Liability Based on Chief Exam. Without Affording Opportunity to Cross Examine  ||  Ker HC to State: Consider Representation by CBSE Schools Assoc. Against Proposed Fee Regulatory Comm.  ||  Ker. HC: Printing Agencies Required to Remove Illegal Hoardings Within 7 Days of Notice  ||  Cal. HC: Police Can’t Use Power U/S 160 CrPC to Call/Arrest Someone Unconnected With Alleged Offence  ||  Cal. HC: Acquiring Property in Name of Wife is Not Benami Transaction  ||  Bombay HC Upholds Validity of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of IGST Act  ||  Del. HC: Haj Pilgrimage is a Religious Practice  ||  SC: If Sufficient Evidence of Involvement Exists, Person Not Named in FIR can be Added as Accused  ||  SC: Possessory Right of Prospective Purchaser Protected U/S 53A of TP Act    

Hi-Lex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (27 Sep 2018)

Assessable value can't be rejected merely on the grounds of NIDB data



The present appeal is filed by the Appellant against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner(Appeal), wherein he has set aside the Order-in-Original. The Commissioner (Appeal) held that, the Adjudicating Authority has not examined the balance sheet of the last three years, NIDB data of the relevant period and without examining the Rule 4 and Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of value of imported goods) Rules, 2007.

It is a fact, not disputed, that the Appellant has imported the goods from their principle (Hi-Lex Japan) for the manufacture of goods and sale thereof. This import had been affected since 2009 and 1998 when first such import was made in year and the transaction value was examined by the Special Value Branch of the Customs House. The Assistant Commissioner, SVB passed first order and thereafter reviewed the same vide renewal order wherein it was categorically concluded that, imported price is not influenced by the relationship as per Rule 2(2) of the Rules, 2007.

The Commissioner (Appeal) has not given any categorical finding as to how the relationship had influenced the transaction value especially when it is on record by way of affidavit that the LTA agreement of 2005 and 2013 have not changed. The pattern of sale transaction the terms and conditions in the two LTAs are same. The Commissioner(Appeal) has not given as to how the NIDB data will be relevant in this case when it is apparent from the facts on records that there is no import/sale of the products in India. The issue NIDB data has never been taken up by the Revenue in the previous imports made by the importer for this reason.

When the Revenue has accepted the previous orders of 2006, 2009 and 2012 and has not challenged the same before any higher forum the valuation adopted by the Appellant, same attended finality as there was no challenge in to those orders. The Commissioner (Appeal) has simply accepted the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue in without giving any independent findings on the point received in the appeal. On the other hand, the lower Adjudicating Authority has dealt with the valuation of the imported by the Appellant as per Customs Valuation Rules after going through the LTA, and examining the affidavit filed by the Appellant.

There is no application of NIDB data in the case where the issue is examination of adoption of valuation under Rules, 2(2) Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs held that, the NIDB data merely provides price indicator of the producer to the Assessing Officer. It is not substituted for assessable value. It is trite that, the assessable value can't be rejected merely on the grounds of NIDB data. Impugned order is set aside and the order passed by the primary Adjudicating Authority is restored.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved