2012 (8) TMI 350 - AT - Customs

Demand of duties - assessable value - higher value of identical goods - clearance of HCH brand ball bearing imported from China Held that - Assessing officer has loaded the value based upon the price list of HCH brand ball bearings after giving 30% discount as per the guidelines of Commissioner of Customs (Import) - there was no contemporaneous import showing import of identical goods at a higher value, the rejection of the transaction value was not justified - in the absence of any corroborative evidence of contemporaneous imports, the enhancement of transaction value is not in accordance with the law - assessing officer has not brought on record any evidence of contemporaneous imports Demand set aside

Summary

Issues:
Under-valuation of imported goods leading to the loading of value by the Assistant Commissioner. Appeal filed by Revenue against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the assessment.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the under-valuation of imported goods, specifically HCH brand ball bearings imported from China. The respondents filed a Bill of Entry declaring the unit price for two different sizes of ball bearings. The Assistant Commissioner loaded the value per piece based on certain amounts, resulting in a consequential demand for duties. The respondents appealed this assessment before the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the order. The Commissioner observed that the assessing officer had enhanced the value without sufficient evidence of contemporaneous imports at a higher value, referencing guidelines and legal precedents, including a Supreme Court case and Tribunal decisions. The appellate authority emphasized the requirement for corroborative evidence of contemporaneous imports to justify enhancing the transaction value.

In response to the appeal filed by Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal noted that while factual backgrounds may vary in each case, the legal principles established in previous judgments must be applied if relevant. The core issue in this case, as in the cited decisions, was the absence of evidence of contemporaneous imports at a higher value for identical goods. The Tribunal emphasized that the crux of the legal declaration by various authorities was the requirement for such corroborative evidence to support the enhancement of assessable value. Revenue argued that the factual distinctions warranted a different application of the legal principles, but the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the absence of evidence regarding contemporaneous imports indicated no justification for interference in the Commissioner (Appeals) order. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected Revenue's appeal.

Therefore, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the necessity of contemporaneous import evidence to support the enhancement of assessable value in cases of under-valuation of imported goods. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to established legal principles and precedents in such matters, emphasizing the requirement for corroborative evidence to justify any modifications to the declared value of imported goods.