2002 (12) TMI 473 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal rejecting the appeal and confirming the enhancement of declared value of goods.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was against the Order-in-Appeal where the Commissioner of Customs had rejected the appeal of the appellants, confirming the enhancement of the declared value of Synthetic Camphor from USD 1315 per MT to 1850 per MT by the lower adjudicating authority. The appellants contended that they were regular importers who had ordered goods at USD 1315 per MT and that there was no misdeclaration on their part. They argued that the subsequent imports were accepted at a value of USD 1350 per MT, supporting the correctness of their declared value. The Revenue, on the other hand, argued that the appellants failed to produce a contract for bulk purchase, leading to the adoption of contemporaneous import and price by the lower authority.

The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that there was a proforma invoice for the bulk purchase of 84 MTs of goods, signed by both parties, and an irrevocable letter of credit was opened for part-consignment. They argued that the proforma invoice constituted a valid contract and should be accepted by the authorities. The Tribunal noted the discrepancy in comparing the 14 MTs imported by other importers with the appellants' 84 MTs, stating that the quantities were not comparable. The Tribunal directed the appellants to provide all invoices and letters of credit related to the import of the total 84 MTs to prove the actual importation. Considering that subsequent imports were accepted at USD 1350 per MT, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for fresh consideration by the original authority.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the lower authority's basis for enhancing the value was flawed due to the incomparable quantities of imports. The appellants were instructed to provide necessary documentation to verify the import of the contracted quantity, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration. The Tribunal emphasized the acceptance of subsequent imports at a lower value, indicating the reasonableness of the declared value.