2007 (8) TMI 568 - AT - Customs

Valuation - Contemporaneous import - price variation clause - Palm Acid Oil - Held that - In the present case, there is no specific evidence on record which brings out that the transaction between the appellant importer and its foreign suppliers located in Malaysia and Indonesia had been influenced by any non-commercial considerations and that invoiced prices did not reflect or reveal the real transaction values. The legal position is clear that transaction value shall be accepted for valuation - appeal allowed.

Issues:
1. Provisional assessment based on purchase prices.
2. Confiscation of consignments for misdeclaration of value.
3. Acceptance of transaction values for assessment.
4. Comparison of import prices and rejection of transaction values.
5. Legal position on transaction values in customs valuation.

Provisional Assessment based on Purchase Prices:
The appellant, a soap manufacturer, imported Palm Acid Oil for manufacturing purposes. Nine consignments imported between July to December 2000 were provisionally assessed initially based on purchase prices. However, for final assessment, the transaction values were rejected, and a uniform assessable value of 260 US $ PMT was imposed, leading to confiscation of consignments for misdeclaration of value and imposition of penalties. The appellant contended that the contracted prices from Indonesia and Malaysia should be accepted under Rule 4 of Customs Valuation Rules.

Confiscation of Consignments for Misdeclaration of Value:
The basis for final assessments at a higher value was the price of comparable imports made by another party at 260 US $. The appellant argued that its imports were under specific contracts and of inferior quality for making cheap laundry soap. The appellant's grievance was that the Revenue authorities chose the highest rates under two bills of entry, disregarding the vast price variation in imported Palm Acid Oil during the period.

Acceptance of Transaction Values for Assessment:
The appellant's contentions were rejected, stating that the information relied upon was not relevant when contemporary import consignments were available. The appellant's argument that transaction values should form the basis of assessment, except in specific cases mentioned in Rule 4(2) of Custom Valuation Rules, was supported by legal precedents.

Comparison of Import Prices and Rejection of Transaction Values:
The Revenue authorities argued that assessments could be made based on comparable values of imported goods, citing legal precedents. They rejected the appellant's claim of importing inferior variety Acid Palm Oil, stating that compared imports were also for soap making. However, the data showed significant price variation (260 US $ to 130 US $) during the period, with 260 US $ being an exception.

Legal Position on Transaction Values in Customs Valuation:
The Tribunal held that in cases of significant price fluctuation where no fixed price existed, transaction values should be accepted unless there is evidence of non-commercial considerations influencing the transaction. Replacing transaction value with the highest import price of comparable goods was deemed contrary to market reality. The Tribunal concluded that transaction values should have been accepted for customs duty assessments, and the orders to the contrary were deemed illegal. The finding of misdeclaration of value based on higher purchase prices by another importer was unfounded.

In conclusion, the appeals were allowed, and the appellant was granted consequential relief, highlighting the importance of accepting transaction values in customs duty assessments based on commercial considerations and market realities.

← Previous Next →