2011 (3) TMI 266 - AT - Customs

Assessable value - Other necessary documents such as copy of purchase order, copy of letter of credit, copy of manufacturer s process certificate/test certificate were also produced with the bill of entry - The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the above evidence now produced by the appellant cannot be admitted as it would be beyond the scope of the Revenue s case as made out in the relevant show-cause notice - This query has not been answered by the appellant even in the present appeal - The learned SDR has fairly submitted that the original authority committed a mistake in the context of adopting the contemporary import value. It is submitted that the value declared in the relevant bill of entry covering the contemporary import of identical goods was, in fact, Euro 179 per cubic metre and not US 179 per cubic metre - Appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against assessable value of imported goods, application of Customs Valuation Rules, rejection of declared value, enhancement of value, acceptance of documentary evidence, admissibility of additional evidence, scope of show-cause notice, deviation from existing practice, mistake in adopting contemporary import value, exchange rate difference.

Analysis:
In this case, the appeal filed by the Revenue challenges the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the assessable value of goods imported by the respondent. The dispute arises from the import of Plain Medium Density Fibre Board-Commercial Grade from a supplier in Belgium. The bill of entry declared the value of the goods at US$ 120 per cubic metre. The Revenue sought to enhance the value based on contemporaneous import values, rejecting the declared value under Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The Assistant Commissioner proposed an enhancement to US$ 171 per cubic metre, which was contested by the importer. The importer argued that they had consistently imported identical goods at the declared value, supported by documentary evidence. The Assistant Commissioner, however, rejected the declared value and enhanced it to US$ 179 per cubic metre. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the importer's evidence, noting the consistency in declared values for identical goods imported by the same supplier. The appellate authority found the lower authority's order to be non-speaking and upheld the declared value, leading to the Revenue's appeal against this decision.

The Revenue, in its appeal, presented additional documentary evidence of contemporaneous imports by other importers at a higher value of US$ 165 per cubic metre. The respondent objected to the admissibility of this evidence, arguing it exceeded the scope of the show-cause notice. The Tribunal agreed with the respondent, emphasizing that evidence beyond the notice's scope cannot be considered, citing established legal principles. The Tribunal noted the absence of a valid reason or evidence for deviation from existing practice in the Revenue's case. The Revenue's mistake in stating the contemporary import value in Euro rather than US dollars significantly impacted the case due to exchange rate differences, further supporting the appellate Commissioner's decision to set aside the original order.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The case underscores the importance of adherence to procedural requirements, the scope of show-cause notices, and the significance of accurate valuation in customs matters, especially considering currency exchange rate implications.