2006 (11) TMI 59 - AT - Customs

Valuation(Customs) Alleged that country of origin of contemporaneous import is different and considering MRP of goods sold in India for purpose of fixing of AD After considering the fact Commissioner(appeals) accepting declared value for the purpose of AD

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the enhancement of value of imported goods
2. Acceptance of declared value vs. MRP price for imposing duty
3. Requirement of evidence of contemporaneous import from the same country of origin, time, and place
4. Legal basis for re-fixing MRP of imported goods

Issue 1: Appeal against the enhancement of value of imported goods
The Revenue appealed against the Order in Original (OIO) No. 68/2004 dated 11-8-2004, which enhanced the value of freely importable consumable items. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the OIO and noted that the value as declared should be accepted, citing a lack of evidence of contemporaneous import from the same country of origin, time, and place. The Commissioner emphasized that there is no statutory law requiring the MRP of imported goods to be at a particular price, as the MRP is determined by market forces. Therefore, the lower authority had no legal basis to re-fix the MRP of the imported goods.

Issue 2: Acceptance of declared value vs. MRP price for imposing duty
The Revenue contended that the invoices of the Malaysian importer should be accepted, as the items were manufactured by Sony, even though imported through Dubai. They argued that the MRP price should have been accepted for imposing duty, referencing various legal rulings. However, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to accept the declared value, unless there is evidence of contemporaneous import from the same country of origin, time, and place. The Tribunal emphasized that the MRP does not govern market forces, as held by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue 3: Requirement of evidence of contemporaneous import
The learned Counsel submitted that evidence of contemporaneous import from the same country of origin, time, and place is necessary, as established in several legal judgments. The Tribunal acknowledged the importance of such evidence in determining the value of imported goods, as highlighted in various rulings cited by the Counsel.

Issue 4: Legal basis for re-fixing MRP of imported goods
The Tribunal, after considering the citations referred to by both sides, found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. They emphasized that the declared price should be accepted under Section 14 of the Customs Act, unless the Revenue provides evidence of contemporaneous import from the same country of origin, time, and place. The Tribunal upheld the decision to set aside the MRP price for fixing Additional Customs Duty, as the MRP does not govern market forces. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision to accept the declared value of the imported goods and emphasized the importance of evidence of contemporaneous import in determining the value for imposing duty. The judgment highlighted the lack of legal basis for re-fixing the MRP of imported goods and affirmed the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision in this regard.