9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Price declaration for import of Erucic Acid. 2. Rejection of declared price by Customs authorities. 3. Dispute regarding import price and quantity. 4. Evidence presented by overseas manufacturer. 5. Revenue's contention on price enhancement. 6. Previous import price comparison. 7. Transaction value determination. Price declaration for import of Erucic Acid: The appellants imported Erucic Acid from Germany and declared the price at US $1375 PMT. However, the Customs authorities rejected this declared price and enhanced it to US $1480 PMT based on the appellant's previous import at the higher price. Rejection of declared price by Customs authorities: The Customs authorities justified the price enhancement by pointing out that the appellant had previously imported the same goods from the same manufacturer at the higher price of US $1480 PMT. This led to a dispute between the appellant and the Revenue regarding the correctness of the declared price. Dispute regarding import price and quantity: The appellant argued that the current import was part of a larger contract for 216 MTs, which resulted in a reduced price of US $1375 PMT as confirmed by a certificate from the overseas manufacturer. They contended that there was no evidence on record to support a price higher than US $1375 PMT for the goods in question. Evidence presented by overseas manufacturer: The overseas manufacturer of the goods provided a letter explaining that the lower price in the current contract was due to the increased quantity and a reduction in the price of raw materials. This evidence supported the appellant's claim of a reduced price for the current import. Revenue's contention on price enhancement: The Revenue argued that since the appellant had previously imported the same goods at a higher price, the price enhancement was justified. However, they failed to produce any evidence to demonstrate that the appellant had paid more than the declared price for the current import. Previous import price comparison: It was established that the appellants had indeed imported the goods in question previously at the rate of US $1480 PMT. However, the explanation from the overseas manufacturer regarding the reduced price for the current import, coupled with the lack of evidence from the Revenue to prove a higher price, led to the rejection of the price enhancement. Transaction value determination: In light of the evidence presented and the lack of proof of a higher price paid by the appellant, the Tribunal concluded that the transaction value could not be rejected. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
|
