2006 (4) TMI 319 - AT - Customs

Valuation - determination of the value on the basis of Internet price - confiscation of the goods - redemption fine and penalty - HELD THAT - We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The transaction value can be rejected under the circumstances mentioned in Rule 4(2) of the Customs (Valuation) Rules 1988. If the circumstances mentioned in Rule 4(2) are not present even then the transaction value can be rejected in terms of Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules. However the Department has not done thorough investigation to show that the identical or similar goods are imported at higher price. Only Internet price has been relied on. It is well known that the price of a commodity depends on many factors including the commercial level. All these things have to be taken into account. Under Rule 10A the Department has to do thorough investigation before rejecting the transaction value. In the present case the Department has simply gone by the website of the manufacturer. The transaction value cannot be assailed only on valid grounds. There is no evidence that the appellant s pay much more than what has been mentioned in the invoice. There are no sufficient grounds to reject the transaction value. The case laws relied on by the appellant s are very relevant. In these circumstances there is no merit in the orders of the lower authorities. Therefore the appeals are allowed with consequential relief.

Issues:
- Valuation of imported goods based on Internet price
- Rejection of transaction value by lower authorities
- Application of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988
- Confiscation of goods for mis-declaration of value
- Redemption fine and penalty imposed

Valuation of Imported Goods Based on Internet Price:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad, regarding the valuation of computer monitors imported through ICD, Hyderabad. The Department fixed the value at $200 per piece, while the appellants declared $80 per piece. The appellant argued that the valuation based on the Internet price of $200 per piece was arbitrary and not sustainable. The appellant contended that the lower authorities failed to consider various evidence provided and relied solely on the website price without proper verification. The appellant cited case law to support the argument that the true identity of the website owner should be established before accepting the website price for valuation.

Rejection of Transaction Value by Lower Authorities:
The appellant further argued that the lower authorities erred in not determining the value of the goods in accordance with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The appellant asserted that the transaction value declared in the Bill of Entry should be accepted unless there are grounds specified under Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The appellant emphasized that the reliance on the Internet price alone was not sufficient to reject the transaction value and that the Department should have conducted a thorough investigation to demonstrate that identical or similar goods were imported at a higher price.

Application of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988:
The Tribunal highlighted that under Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules, the Department must conduct a comprehensive investigation before rejecting the transaction value. In this case, the Department solely relied on the manufacturer's website without sufficient evidence to show that the appellants paid more than the declared value. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument that the transaction value cannot be rejected without valid grounds and that the lower authorities did not have enough basis to reject the transaction value. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not follow the necessary procedures and allowed the appeals with consequential relief.

Confiscation of Goods for Mis-declaration of Value and Redemption Fine/Penalty Imposed:
Regarding the confiscation of goods for mis-declaration of value, the Tribunal ruled that the redemption fine and penalty imposed were excessive. The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalty rates based on previous orders in similar cases. The Tribunal found that there was no merit in the lower authorities' decisions and granted relief to the appellants based on the arguments presented and the lack of substantial evidence supporting the rejection of the transaction value.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, emphasizing the importance of proper valuation procedures, thorough investigations, and valid grounds for rejecting transaction values in customs cases.

← Previous Next →