Order date – 10 August 2022

Facts – 

• The appellant, M/s Bytesware Electronics, filed Bill of Entry No 9040630 dated 03-10-2020, for import of Integrated Circuits, at a declared assessable value of Rs 29,37,162, from the overseas supplier.
• It appeared to the department that the value declared by the appellants was not correct as compared to identical items imported earlier; queries were raised in the system; as the submission by the importer appeared to be without justification, it was proposed to assess the Bill of Entry in question as per Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962; an opportunity of personal hearing was accorded to the appellants.
• Assistant Commissioner rejected the value of Rs 29,42,750.19 as and ordered for re-determination of the same as Rs 5,18,24,993.75 in terms of Section 14 of the Act read with Rule 4 of the said Rules. 
• Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal.

Issue – 

• Whether the order passed by the department declaring the value declared by the appellant of the imported goods incorrect is justifiable?

Order – 

• The Tribunal observed that the department has not given any cogent reasons for rejection of the declared value, except stating that the appellants have imported identical goods in the past at a higher price. Nothing is forthcoming in the impugned orders as to how they constitute identical goods except for the description. Also, it was found that the department has not obtained any technical opinion on the impugned goods so as to examine the identical nature of the products.
• The argument of the appellants that the quantity imported is not comparable has been accepted by the Tribunal and they held that the Department is attempting to compare the value at which 23750 Nos of ICs were imported, with the value at which a meagre 13 Nos were imported vide another B/e. 
• Therefore, invocation of Rule 4 of CVR, 2007, after rejecting the declared value under Rule 12, though for no cogent reasons, is not legally sustainable.
• Moreover, as per Rule 4 of CVR, 2007 the transaction value of identical goods in a sale at the same commercial level and in substantially the same quantity as the goods being valued shall be used to determine the value of imported goods. In the instant case, comparison of the quantities, betrays a complete mismatch. Therefore, the valuation arrived on the basis of so-called identical goods is not legally sustainable.
• The Tribunal also held that there should be evidence on record to show that the importers have paid directly or indirectly any amount over and above the invoice value. The same view was taken in Bayer India Ltd. V. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. In the instant case the department has not made any case for rejection of the value declared by the appellants therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
• Appeal allowed.