Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (3) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (3) TMI 959 - AT - Customs


Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the re-determination of assessable value of imported goods, rejection of transaction value, demand for differential duty, confiscation of goods, provisional release on redemption fine, imposition of penalty, mis-declaration of goods, comparison of NIDB data, and valuation based on LME price.

Re-determination of assessable value of imported goods:
The appellant, M/s Karan International, filed appeals against orders enhancing the value of imported "Enamelled Aluminum Wire" consigned from China. The Commissioner rejected the transaction value declared under Customs Act and re-determined the assessable value under Customs Valuation Rules, demanding payment of differential duty, confiscating the goods, releasing them on redemption fine, and imposing penalties on the importer. The appellant contested the re-determination, stating it led to excess duty payment and that the goods were not mis-declared.

Mis-declaration of goods and comparison with NIDB data:
The Department claimed the imported goods were Enamelled Copper Clad Aluminium Wires, not Enamelled Aluminum Wire as declared. However, tests conducted by various institutes confirmed the goods were Enamelled Aluminum Wire. The Department issued a show-cause notice proposing to enhance the value of the goods and re-determined the value based on LME price. The appellant argued that the goods were not manufactured from prime materials, as certified by the manufacturers, and disputed the comparison of NIDB data, stating it was not for identical goods.

Legal infirmity in the Commissioner's orders:
The Tribunal found legal infirmity in the Commissioner's orders as the NIDB data comparison was for a different product, Braiding Wire of Aluminium Alloy, not Enamelled Aluminum Wire. The manufacturers' certificates confirmed the goods were made from scrap, not prime materials. The Tribunal held that the Department's valuation based on LME price was incorrect, considering the goods' manufacturing process. The orders were set aside based on the manufacturers' certifications and lack of evidence to support mis-declaration.

Judgment:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, citing the manufacturers' certificates, test reports, and lack of evidence supporting mis-declaration. The comparison with NIDB data was found inadequate, and the valuation based on LME price was deemed inappropriate. Following legal precedents, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's orders and provided consequential relief to the appellants.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates