2006 (5) TMI 279 - AT - Customs

Valuation - similar goods - value based on contemporaneous import - Held that - There is no material on record to show that the goods are comparable in quality. Further the level of import is not comparable as in respect of Model KFR-51 GW which is the only model tallying with one of the 4 models imported only 10 sets were imported. Therefore the NIDB date does not establish that the contemporaneous import was of similar goods imported from China - the evidence on record is not sufficient to discard the transaction value which is therefore required to be accepted - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over the declared value of imported goods.
2. Application of Rule 6 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.
3. Comparison of contemporaneous import data.
4. Admissibility of NIDB data as evidence.
5. Tribunal's decision on accepting transaction value.

Analysis:
1. The appellants filed bills of entry for the clearance of imported Air-Conditioners, declaring the value at US $85 per piece. The dispute arose regarding the uniform value declared for different models, with contentions that no letter of credit was opened, no quantity discount was given, and no manufacturer's invoice was produced. The authorities proposed to increase the values for various models, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Customs (A), leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The Tribunal examined the NIDB data, noting that only one model matched with the imported models. However, there was no evidence to establish comparability in quality or level of import. As per Rule 6 of the Customs Valuation Rules, the value of imported goods should be based on transaction value of similar goods imported around the same time. Since the NIDB data did not prove contemporaneous import of similar goods, the Tribunal held that the rule was inapplicable. Citing previous court judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that Customs authorities can rely on contemporaneous evidence to challenge invoice value, but in this case, the evidence was insufficient to reject the transaction value.

3. Considering the lack of evidence establishing the comparability of imported goods and the significant difference in import levels, the Tribunal concluded that the transaction value should be accepted. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the application of relevant rules, the assessment of import data, and the Tribunal's decision to uphold the transaction value based on the evidence presented.