2014 (2) TMI 1104 - AT - Customs

Valuation of goods - Rejection of transaction value - Whether there can be two prices for import of the same goods for manufacture or as spare parts - Held that - When undervaluation is alleged, the department has to prove it by evidence or information about comparable imports. For proving undervaluation, if the department relies on declaration made in the exporting country, it has to show how such declaration was procured. We may clarify that strict rules of evidence do not apply to adjudication proceedings. They apply strictly to the courts proceedings. However, even in adjudication proceedings, the AO has to examine the probative value of the documents on which reliance is placed by the department in support of its allegation of undervaluation. Once the department discharges the burden of proof to the above extent by producing evidence of contemporaneous imports at higher price, the onus shifts to the importer to establish that the invoice relied on by him is valid. Therefore, the charge of under-invoicing has to be supported by evidence of prices of contemporaneous imports of like goods. Section 14(1) speaks of deemed value . Therefore, invoice price can be disputed. However, it is for the department to prove that the invoice price is incorrect. Revenue has failed to prove otherwise apart from import of spare parts the value of the imported goods has been influenced being related person. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the same is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Valuation of imported goods from related person, loading on declared value, applicability of dual prices for imported goods, influence of relationship on transaction value, evidentiary burden on department in case of related persons, relevance of contemporaneous imports in valuation.

Analysis:

Valuation of Imported Goods:
The appellant, a manufacturer of motor vehicles, imported goods from related persons, leading to a dispute on the declared value. The Special Valuation Cell (SVC) rejected the transaction value, resulting in a 10% loading on the declared value. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing the lack of positive evidence from the appellant to prove that the transaction value was not influenced due to the relationship. The appellant challenged this order, arguing that the impugned order was unsustainable as per Board Circular 82/2002-Cus. V, allowing for dual prices for original equipment parts and spare parts. The Tribunal referenced a previous case to support the contention that spare parts often cost more than original equipment, justifying the higher price. The department failed to provide evidence that the transaction value was influenced due to the relationship, leading to the impugned order being set aside and the appeal allowed.

Applicability of Dual Prices:
The Tribunal examined whether there can be two prices for the import of the same goods for manufacturing or as spare parts. Referring to a Board Circular, it was established that dual prices for components imported as OE parts and spare parts must be accepted unless evidence proves otherwise. The Tribunal emphasized that simply because spare parts are priced higher than OE parts, it does not justify enhancing the value of OE parts for assessment purposes. The lack of evidence to show that the relationship influenced the price led to the rejection of the impugned order and allowance of the appeal.

Influence of Relationship on Transaction Value:
In the absence of evidence showing that the relationship between the appellant and the exporter influenced the transaction value, the impugned order was deemed legally flawed. The Tribunal highlighted the department's failure to produce any evidence on record supporting the claim that the transaction value was affected due to the related person status. Citing a Supreme Court observation, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of proving undervaluation with concrete evidence, particularly regarding contemporaneous imports at higher prices. As the Revenue failed to provide such evidence, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, relevant legal principles, and the final decision of the Tribunal.