2003 (4) TMI 339 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported car for customs duty assessment based on manufacturer's price certificate.

The judgment revolves around the valuation of an imported Mitsubishi Pajero car for customs duty assessment. The appellant imported the car and claimed assessment based on the price of ¥ 1800000 FOB Japan, supported by a certificate from the manufacturer. However, customs authorities assessed the car at a higher value of ¥ 3408000, refusing to accept the appellant's valuation. The appellant protested this increase and filed an appeal challenging the assessment based on the higher price. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, citing the valuation done by the lower authority as per established practice and deeming the price certificate from the importer unacceptable for valuation purposes.

The appellant argued that the car should be assessed at the sale price, certified by the manufacturer, and contended that the valuation carried out by customs authorities was contrary to law. The appellant relied on a decision by the Calcutta High Court, emphasizing that valuation should be based on the sale price (transaction value) and not prices from publications like the World Car Catalogue. The High Court's decision highlighted that valuation should adhere to the principles of Section 14 of the Customs Act and the Valuation Rules, dismissing the notion of an established practice overriding statutory provisions.

On the other hand, the Departmental Representative defended the customs authorities' actions by stating that they had obtained a price list from the manufacturer, which was submitted during the proceedings. However, this list was mostly in Japanese and was not provided to the importer for comments. The Departmental Representative argued that substituting a list price for the sale price, certified by the manufacturer, was unjustified. The Representative contested that the sale price, certified on an FOB basis, should have been accepted for assessment, regardless of the country of import. The Departmental Representative also refuted the notion of an established practice justifying a higher valuation, emphasizing that such practices should not contravene statutory provisions. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous order and providing relief to the appellant by rejecting the higher valuation for customs duty assessment.