2005 (4) TMI 358 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of transaction value for customs duty assessment.
2. Confiscation and penalty imposed on imported Hepatitis-B Vaccine consignment.
3. Relationship between parties affecting transaction value.
4. Misdeclaration of goods.
5. Confiscation and penalty imposition validity.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported a Hepatitis-B Vaccine consignment from its holding company, but the transaction value was rejected for customs duty assessment. The goods were ordered to be assessed at the list price of the holding company. The appellant contended that despite the related parties, the transaction value should have been accepted as the relationship did not influence the sale price. Reference was made to the Indian resale price of the vaccine to support this argument. The appellant also highlighted that the consignment was manufactured against a WHO order, but details about the sale to WHO were not provided. The Tribunal noted that the transaction was between related parties, and apart from the payment at the transaction price, there was no evidence to show that the relationship did not impact the transaction. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the transaction value for assessment based on the lack of evidence supporting a purely commercial price.

2. The Tribunal addressed the issue of misdeclaration, noting that the appellant had not misdeclared any particulars regarding the relationship between the parties and the transaction value. The dispute was deemed to be a legal one, and the charge of misdeclaration was found to be incorrect. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order for confiscation and penalty imposition, as there was no basis for such actions. The appeal was partly allowed on this ground.

3. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the transaction value for customs duty assessment due to insufficient evidence of a purely commercial price unaffected by the relationship between the parties. However, the Tribunal found no misdeclaration of goods and deemed the confiscation and penalty imposition unwarranted. Therefore, the order related to confiscation and penalty imposition was set aside, and the appeal was partly allowed on this basis.