2005 (7) TMI 473 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of imported consignment value based on comparable goods.
2. Rejection of transaction value for assessment purposes.
3. Justification for adopting identical goods for assessment.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Assessment of imported consignment value based on comparable goods
The case involves a manufacturer of Decorative Laminated sheets who imported Phenol, a raw material, under Bill of Entry No. 5890. Customs authorities assessed the consignment at a higher value than the invoice price, citing the need to assess it based on the value of comparable goods. The appellant challenged this assessment, arguing that their purchase price should be accepted as the transaction value for assessment purposes. The Tribunal noted that the import price was considered "very low" without specific reasons for rejecting the assessable value, leading to the conclusion that the transaction was commercial in nature. The Tribunal found no basis for discarding the transaction between the importer and the supplier, especially considering the appellant's regular importation of the material for domestic manufacture and the minor difference in price.

Issue 2: Rejection of transaction value for assessment purposes
The appellant contended that under Customs Law, the transaction value should be accepted for assessment, emphasizing the absence of any material casting doubt on the commercial nature of the transaction. The appellant highlighted the lack of a relationship between the importer and the foreign supplier that would invalidate the transaction value. Citing the Eisher Tractor case, the appellant argued that assessable value should be the transaction value unless rejected for reasons specified in the Customs Valuation Rules. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument, stating that the order lacked specific reasons for rejecting the assessable value and that the circumstances indicated a fully commercial transaction.

Issue 3: Justification for adopting identical goods for assessment
The Departmental Representative (DR) justified the adoption of identical goods for assessment, pointing out that both imports were made at the same time and had the same Bill of Lading date. However, the quantity difference between the imports did not explain the price difference. The Tribunal found this justification insufficient, especially given the lack of specific reasons for rejecting the transaction value. The Tribunal emphasized that the price relevant for assessment should be the price of the consignment under assessment unless valid reasons specified in the Valuation Rules justify a different approach. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.