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 320 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - various types of cosmetics - rejection of declared value - revision of assessable value under rule 7 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - requirement to carry the retail selling price (RSP) in accordance with requirements of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 - HELD THAT:- The ascertainment of abatement from local sale price ‘lipgloss’/ ‘lipstick’ was applied, across the board, to other goods in the consignment entered for import by the appellant. This, in itself, is not acceptable as no justification had been offered for different types of goods to be treated alike. Furthermore, three conditions are pre-requisite in the ‘deductive value’ method option, viz., that the sale is to persons who are not related to the person in India, that derivation of the unit price should have been from identical or similar imported goods sold in the highest aggregate quantity and that sale be in the condition as imported and about the time at which the bills are presented for import. The rejection of declared value without subjecting the invoice of the manufacturer to scrutiny is clear breach of circumstances in which rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 could be invoked legally. Compounding this deviation from the law, failure on the part of the adjudicating authority to acknowledge the local sale invoices as evidence of existence of ‘transaction value’ of identical/similar goods is further indication of command performance instead of application of mind warranted by the exercise of valuation in accordance with statutory prescription. In such circumstances, rejection of the declared value under the authority of rule 3(3) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 requires that ‘transaction value’ of identical goods/similar goods takes precedence over substitution by ‘deductive value’ from local prices even if the ascertainment had been of each type of goods and in conformity with the conditions therein. It would appear that the original authority has improperly proceeded beyond the preceding methods in the sequential enumeration. The first appellate authority, in endorsing the re-determination, had failed to take note of breach of this prescriptionin Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. Accordingly, the resort to deductive value for assessment is incorrect. The impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed.
|