2008 (10) TMI 567 - AT - Customs

Valuation (Customs) - Transaction value - Enhancement of - Evidence - So long as transaction value is correct and there is absence of evidence

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against enhancement of valuation, confiscation, and imposition of penalty based on Customs Act, 1962 and EXIM Policy.

Analysis:
The case involved two appeals concerning the enhancement of valuation, confiscation, and penalty imposed on imported Computer Monitors and P-III systems. The Additional Commissioner had increased the declared value of the goods, leading to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option for redemption on payment of a fine and penalty. The appellants contested the valuation method adopted by the department, which was based on Rules 5 to 8 and Chartered Engineer's valuation.

The learned counsel argued that the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Motor Industries Co. Ltd. clarified that the department cannot reject transaction value without proper evidence, emphasizing the need to accept transaction value in the absence of contemporaneous evidence. The counsel cited various Supreme Court and Tribunal judgments supporting this position, advocating for a reduction in the fine and penalty based on previous rulings in similar cases.

The JDR, on the other hand, supported the department's valuation method, citing the acceptance of Chartered Engineer's certificate in a previous Supreme Court judgment. Additionally, the JDR highlighted the appellants' failure to obtain the necessary import license, justifying the imposition of fine and penalty under the EXIM Policy.

The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and precedents cited, upheld the transaction value declared in the Bill of Entries, setting aside the enhancement made by the department. However, regarding the fine and penalty, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' non-compliance with the import license requirements but decided to reduce the redemption fine and penalty to 10% and 5% of the declared value, respectively, following previous judgments involving similar imports of Computer Monitors and P-III Systems. Consequently, the appeals were allowed on these terms with consequential relief granted.