2004 (7) TMI 486 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in declared value of imported goods.
2. Comparison of imports from different countries and packaging sizes.
3. Justification for enhancement of value based on market enquiries.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal due to the Customs Authorities enhancing the declared value of imported Butter Oil from US$ 1100 per m.t. to US$ 1560 per m.t. The appellant contended that the value enhancement was unjustified as it was based on the import values of other companies like M/s. Nestle India Ltd. and M/s. Sterling Agro, which were not comparable as they imported from different countries and in different packaging sizes.

2. The appellant argued that M/s. Nestle India Ltd. imported Butter Oil from Belgium in consumer packs of 1 kg. or 2 kg., while the appellant imported from France in bulk containers of 200 kgs. The appellant also presented a Bill of Entry from M/s. M.K. Marketing showing an import value of US$ 1150 per m.t. The appellant invoked a Supreme Court decision stating that contemporaneous higher prices in other imports are not sufficient grounds to reject the transaction value if the price is commercially justified, emphasizing the importance of full and commercial pricing in each transaction.

3. The Revenue justified the value enhancement based on market enquiries and the import values of M/s. Nestle India Ltd. and M/s. Sterling Agro from the same country of origin. However, the Tribunal found that the imports by M/s. Nestle India Ltd. were not comparable to the appellant's imports due to differences in country of origin and packaging sizes. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling that the import values of other companies could not be the basis for enhancing the appellant's declared value, thereby allowing the appeal.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of discrepancy in declared values, comparison of imports, and justification for value enhancement, providing a detailed understanding of the legal reasoning and decision-making process involved in the case.