Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 323 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - Enhancement of value based on NIDB data - violations of PFT Act and the PFA Rules - packages imported did not contain the details of manufacturer as required under the said Act - confiscation of the goods - imposition of redemption fine and penalty. Enhancement of value based on NIDB data - demand of differential duty - HELD THAT:- It is correct that in show cause notice the proposal is to enhance the value in terms of Rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. However, adjudicating authority has applied Rule 5 to confirm the enhancement of value and to demand differential duty. The value has been enhanced solely on the basis of NIDB data. The details of bill of entry has been mentioned. It is not clear as to which is the country from which the contemporaneous imports are made. So also, the name of the supplier is not clear. The appellant ought to be provided with complete details of the contemporaneous import relied upon to enhance the value. The courts have cautioned against the sole reliance of NIDB data for enhancement of value - In the case of M/S. TOPSIA ESTATES PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI (IMPORT-SEAPORT) [2015 (1) TMI 750 - CESTAT CHENNAI], the Tribunal held that the value declared cannot be rejected merely on the basis of NIDB data. In the present case, the department has failed to substantiate as to how the value adopted on the basis of NIDB data is comparable in the absence of details required in the nature of name of manufacturer, country of origin etc. to arrive at contemporaneous price. The facts being so, there are no sufficient reasons to reject the transaction value and for the enhancement of value. The demand of differential duty cannot sustain and requires to be set aside. Confiscation of the goods and the imposition of redemption fine and penalty - main allegation of violations of PFT Act and the PFA Rules is that the packages imported did not contain the details of manufacturer as required under the said Act - HELD THAT:- The infractions alleged under the PFA Act and Rules and FFS Act 2006, if any, has been rectified - The Tribunal in the case of M/S. AVENUE IMPEX VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [2012 (2) TMI 39 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] had occasion to consider a similar situation. The imported goods which did not comply with the requirement of providing necessary details on the bulk bags was ordered to be released after complying with the repacking and relabelling in the customs bonded premises. In the present case, the goods having been released after rectifying the deficiency and on fulfilment of the conditions, as per direction of Hon’ble High Court, the confiscation of goods cannot sustain. Consequently, the redemption fine and penalties imposed are required to be set aside. The impugned order cannot sustain. The same is set aside. Appeal is allowed.
|