9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Enhanced assessable value of imported electronic components. 2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of duty and penalties. 3. Validity of letters from traders as a basis for enhancing assessable value. 4. Contemporaneous import evidence and stock lot importation. Analysis: 1. The Commissioner of Customs enhanced the assessable value of imported electronic components based on letters from traders, leading to the demand of duty, confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and personal penalties. The appellants, through their Advocate, argued that the declared value was based on invoices from the trader and challenged the reliance on letters from M/s. Electronic Sales Corporation and M/s. Philips India Ltd. The Advocate highlighted that the goods were not of "Philips" brand and questioned the validity of using these letters to enhance the assessable value without evidence to rebut the invoice price. 2. The Advocate further pointed out that the prices indicated in the letters were not conclusive, especially noting a disclaimer in one of the letters regarding pricing variations for excess or obsolete stocks. The appellants presented correspondence with overseas suppliers to establish that the goods were stock lot with lower prices. They also provided evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical goods, which the Commissioner rejected on various grounds. The Advocate relied on legal precedents, including a Supreme Court decision, to support the argument that transaction value should be accepted in normal circumstances. 3. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and reviewed the impugned order by the Commissioner. It observed that while the price declaration for Diodes and LEDs was accepted due to lack of evidence of under-valuation, the value of ICs was enhanced based on the questionable letters from traders. The Tribunal found that these letters were mere quotations and not conclusive proof, especially given the disclaimer about price variations. Additionally, the evidence provided by the appellants for contemporaneous imports at the declared price supported their case. 4. Considering the difference in quantity, nature of importation as stock lot, and the evidence of contemporaneous imports at the same price, the Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for enhancing the assessable value. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. As the appeal of one appellant was allowed, there was no basis for imposing penalties on the second appellant, leading to the allowance of their appeal as well.
|
