Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2018 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1258 - AT - CustomsValuation - related person - non-speaking review order - Rejection of transaction value at the time of reviewing order - Comparison with NIDB data not done - Held that:- The detailed inquiry into the transaction value is not required to be conducted at every instance except where the proper officer has previously examined the relationship between the parties or where the proper officer has detailed information about the buyer and the seller. In addition, none of these Rules require the adjudicating officer to inquire into NIDB data as was directed vide the order under review dated 18.05.2015 and has been accepted vide order under challenge - The law has been settled that onus to prove that the declared price did not reflect the true transaction value is always on the Department and that Department is bound to accept the transaction value entered between the two parties, unless and until, Department has a cogent evidence that identical or similar goods were imported by other importers at higher price. It is an admitted fact that appellant’s/ importer’s relationship with foreign suppliers was previously examined in terms of SVB order dated 09.03.2011. After the expiry of subsequent three years, the importer provided detailed information about itself as well as about the foreign suppliers in the requisite format - It becomes clear that the requirements for Rule 3(3) of the Valuation Rules for acceptance of declared transaction value has been fulfilled. Since, NIDB data is not a mandatory requisite under the Rules, the same cannot be held to be a cogent evidence proving the reasonable doubt of the assessing officer. The order under challenge has wrongly rejected the transaction value at the time of reviewing order dated 09.03.2011 merely for want of its comparison with NIDB data. There is no evidence otherwise for supporting the doubt that the relationship of the parties herein had influenced the transaction value. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|