NIDB Data & Chartered Engineer’s Valuation cannot be sole basis to reject transaction value.

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1398

Case:- M/s MARVEL AGENCIES Vs COMM. OF CUSTOMS, ICD, NEW DELHI

Citation:-2013-TIOL-31-CESTAT-DEL

Brief Facts:-The dispute in the present appeal is as regards valuation of the said electric motor imported by the applicant from China. The adjudicating authority has arrived at the enhanced assessable value based upon the National Import Database (NIDB) data, with which the appellant has serious grievances. The fact is that the motor imported by the applicant was of 'Y' series whereas the price of EG and Y2 service stands adopted by the Commissioner. Elaborating on argument, the appellant submits that there is difference between two type of series of electric motor and it is not possible to compare the price of the one with other. As against the above, the attention of the adjudicating authority was also drawn to the imports of 'Y' series made at Tughlakabad port wherein the motors were cleared at nearby price more or less identical.

Appellant Contention:-The appellant contented that the Chartered Engineer cannot be held to be an expert in valuation and as such his opinion makes no difference. Clarifying further he submits that unless the motor is opened and put on the efficiency and the quality of the products including the wiring used therein is examined, it is not possible to come to the correct value of the same. He also submits that they asked for the cross-examination of the Chartered Engineer, which was not permitted by the adjudicating authority.

Respondent Contention:-The respondent submits that the appellants, in respect of the live consignment, has agreed to pay duty on the enhanced value. He further submits that Chartered Engineer is a qualified expert for arriving at the correct valuation and as such his opinion cannot be taken lightly. NIDB data mainly pertaining to Chennai port and also from Nhava Sheva port clearly indicates that the identical goods were being imported at a higher value. He submits that this fact itself reflects upon the incorrect and wrong declaration by the appellant as regards the value of the imported electric motors. He further submits that during the course of personal hearing before the adjudicating authority they never insisted on cross-examination of the expert.

Reasoning of Judgement:- It is found by the Tribunal thatthe entire case of Revenue is mainly based upon the NIDB data and Chartered Engineer expert opinion. As regards NIDB data, it stands held in various decision that the same cannot be adopted as the sole basis for enhancing the value and the evidence of contemporaneous imports is required. The contemporaneous import should also be in respect of the same type of goods, matching in all respects and even a minor difference in the imported goods and the contemporaneous imports would make the contemporaneous evidence as ineffective. We also note that there is no evidence to discard the transaction value, which is a pre-requisite for enhancing the assessable value based upon the other evidences. As such, at this prima facie stage, we are of the view that the appellant has been able to make a good case in its favour so as to allow both the stay petitions unconditionally.

Decision:-Stay Granted.

Comment:- The analogy drawn from this case is that for rejecting transaction value, NIDB data and Chartered Engineer’s valuation cannot be made the sole basis and further contemporaneous imports of same type of goods is required and even a minor difference in imported goods would make the same as ineffective.

Comments

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1398

Post a Comment

Query