2011 (7) TMI 370 - AT - Customs

Missdeclaration - Import of goods - The appellants herein filed four Bills of Entry in September 2002, October 2002 and November 2002 for clearance of Soga brand glassware- On comparison of the 2001 and 2002 price list, it was noticed that the price list in 2001 was much higher. On comparison of all the four price lists, it was noticed that 1999 and 2001 prices were higher while 2000 and 2002 showed of lower price - No explanation was offered for this by the importer. Hence pending receipt of clarification provisional assessment was resorted to on the basis of 2001 price list - Therefore, there is no reason why the Department should not adopt the 2001 price list for arriving at the value of the goods and confirm the duty demand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Conflict in pricing between different years' price lists for imported goods.
2. Provisional assessment based on a specific price list and subsequent finalization by the Department.
3. Challenge to the final assessment before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a conflict in pricing of imported Soga brand glassware based on different years' price lists. The Department initially assessed the goods based on the 2001 price list due to discrepancies in pricing compared to the 2000 price list. The importer did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the pricing differences among the various lists, leading to provisional assessment and a duty demand of Rs.9,87,304/- based on the 2001 price list.

2. The importer sought finalization of the provisional assessment through a petition to the Hon'ble High Court, which directed the Department to conclude the assessment within a specified timeframe. Despite the extension granted by the High Court, the Department finalized the assessment based on the 2001 price list. The lower appellate authority upheld this decision, prompting the appeal to the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI.

3. During the appeal, both sides presented their arguments, with the authorities justifying the use of the 2001 price list for valuation. The Tribunal noted the detailed reasons provided by the authorities, including the authenticity and completeness of the 2001 price list compared to the 2002 list. The absence of contemporaneous pricing data and the lack of evidence regarding other importers using the 2002 price list further supported the adoption of the 2001 price list for valuation. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision and rejected the appeal, affirming the duty demand based on the 2001 price list.