2014 (8) TMI 431 - AT - Customs

Valuation of goods - First appellate authority has set aside the OIO enhancing the assessable value primarily on the grounds that goods imported at higher value were under a different contract when international prices of the imported goods were fluctuating - whether the value of imported USA Origin US Green Petroleum Coke should enhanced on the basis of value of the consignments of the similar goods imported in the same vessel and also supplied by the same supplier - Held that - there is no evidence on record to suggest that any amount over and above the transaction value has been repatriated by the Respondent with respect to imported goods of Bill of Entry No. F-188 dt 25/7/2008. The Act of the respondent J K Cements Ltd showing a higher C&F Value for the similar goods under Bills of Entry No F.187 gives an indication to the genuine nature of transaction based on the contracts as respondent has not hidden any facts from the department - Decision in the case of CC Vishakapatanam vs. Aggrawal Industries Ltd 2011 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and in the case of CC Chennai vs Pushpanjali Silks Pvt Ltd 2006 (3) TMI 515 - CESTAT, CHENNAI followed - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the value of imported goods should be enhanced based on similar goods imported in the same vessel.
2. Whether the transaction value can be rejected in cases of fluctuating international prices.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue to set aside the OIA and uphold the OIO passed by the AC, Customs. The first appellate authority accepted the transaction value of imported goods under Bills of Entry, citing differences in contracts and justified price fluctuations. The Revenue argued that the goods were identical, arrived in the same vessel, and the first appellate authority erred in not considering the facts properly. The Revenue relied on the Supreme Court case of Rajkumar Knitting Mills to support their argument that the value prevailing on the date of import should be considered.

2. The Respondent argued that the transaction value cannot be rejected based on settled laws and differentiated the case from the Supreme Court judgments. The issue revolved around whether the value of imported goods should be enhanced based on similar goods imported in the same vessel. The CESTAT Chennai case was referenced to support the argument that the declared value should be acceptable. The Supreme Court upheld the CESTAT order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the case records and concluded that there was no evidence to suggest any excess amount over the transaction value was repatriated by the Respondent. The Tribunal referred to the case of CC Vishakapatanam vs. Aggrawal Industries Ltd to support the decision that the revenue erred in rejecting the invoice price. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the first appellate authority's orders based on the facts and legal precedents.

4. In summary, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal based on the facts, legal principles, and judgments cited. The decision was in line with previous case laws and upheld the transaction value declared by the Respondent. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case and adhering to established legal principles in determining the assessable value of imported goods.