9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Determination of the value of imported goods u/s Customs Valuation Rules.
Summary: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the value declared for the imported sealed lead acid batteries. The importer declared a value of 0.25 USD per piece, which was considered abnormally low by the authorities. The adjudicating authority conducted an investigation and enhanced the price of the imported batteries. The importer then appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the original order, leading to the current appeal. The Revenue argued that the sale contract relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) was for a larger quantity of batteries not imported by the respondents. They contended that the value declared by the importer was significantly lower than the contemporaneous imports at the same commercial level, as per Customs Valuation Rules. On the other hand, the respondents' advocate highlighted that the sale agreement was specific to the purchase of batteries from the foreign buyer and that they had imported a substantial quantity of batteries as per the agreement. After considering the submissions from both sides and examining the records, it was found that the importer had a valid contract with the supplier for the supply of batteries at the declared value. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the large quantity of batteries purchased by the importer and the absence of evidence to reject the declared value. The Commissioner's decision was upheld as the imported goods were assessed based on the declared value of 0.25 USD per piece, in accordance with the existing contract. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, stating that the enhancement of value could not be sustained as the goods were imported based on a valid contract without any contradictory evidence presented by the appellant. The impugned order was deemed legal and correct, thus no interference was required.
|
