Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2017 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1015 - AT - CustomsValuation - accessories and batteries for mobile phones/ laptop - The Revenue entertained a view that two of the items (battery bank and car charger) were with brand name „ROMOS‟ which was not declared and the classification and valuation of imported items were to be re-determined - appellant's case is that the imported goods were reassessed twice which is against the provisions of law - Held that: - No discussion was found regarding the comparability of NIBD data both in quality, and quantity, level of transaction of comparable goods. It simply records that when there is evidence of higher contemporaneous import value of similar goods, it is difficult to accept the declared value - if the assessing officer is attributing reason that the brand goods will have additional value then the comparison should be with similar branded goods. We note that the NIBD data is for unbranded goods and that too for imports many months back from the date of present import or after many months of the said import. The contemporaneous value should be comparable in quality, volume, country of origin and many other parameters so that appropriate transaction value can be arrived at. We find no analyses of these issues either in the original order or in the first appellate order. Matter remitted for decision afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|