2015 (11) TMI 1090 - AT - Customs

Undervaluation of import of plastic chairs and CD holders - Revenue called for manufacturer s invoice from the importers, who could not produce the same. - Whether the Revenue s reliance upon the printout retrieved from a CD recovered during search which relates to the export declaration made by the manufacturer while sending the goods to M/s. UNI Pure Ltd. UK, who is the supplier of the goods to the appellant, is a sufficient documentary evidence to enhance the value of the consignment - Held that - No further enquiry stand made by the Revenue either from the manufacturer or from the supplier of the goods. As such the documents relating to the transactions between the manufacturer and the supplier of the goods have no relevance insofar as the appellant has imported the goods in question from the supplier. The Directors of the company in their statements recorded during the investigations have clearly deposed that they have paid their supplier an amount shown in the contract raised in the invoices and they are not aware of the manufacturer s price as also of the fact as to why the supplier has sold them the consignment at a reduced value even if, as per the Revenue, he has received the same at a higher value. - It is not proved on record that the supplier has procured the goods at that price shown in the said printout. In any case, it is only an export declaration made at Taiwan and cannot be adopted as a true value of the goods inasmuch as an exporter can enhance the value of the goods for the purpose of his own benefits which might have been available to them under the export laws of that country. There is no further evidence on record showing that the importer had paid extra amount to the supplier of the goods. Transaction value is confined to the particular transaction and in the absence of any other evidence, same has to be adopted as the assessable value. The Revenue in the present case has not produced any contemporaneous evidence and the reliance by the Revenue to another import at Chennai Port cannot be held to be contemporaneous inasmuch as the goods are not of the same country of origin. The reference to the contemporaneous import is in respect of European origin goods whereas the goods in the present case are of Taiwan origin. As such we find no reasons to doubt the transaction value declared by the appellant. The enhancement of the same based upon the some extraneous documents is neither justified nor warranted. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Determination of assessable value for imported goods based on documentary evidence, relevance of documents retrieved during search, burden of proof on Revenue to establish undervaluation.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the import of plastic chairs and CD holders from Taiwan by the appellant, declared at a value of US $8658.80. Revenue doubted the declared value and provisionally assessed the goods at a higher value of Rs. 5,44,258, based on a computer printout retrieved from a CD during a search operation.

2. The Revenue contended that the printout indicated a higher value of US $26068.80 for the goods, leading to the confirmation of differential duty. However, the appellant had a written sales contract with the supplier, M/s. UNI Pure Ltd., who invoiced the goods at the declared value. The Directors of the appellant affirmed their lack of knowledge regarding the manufacturer's price and the reasons for any discrepancy in values.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the evidentiary value of the printout and noted that it was not signed or certified, lacking authenticity. It was observed that the printout did not conclusively prove that the manufacturer sold the goods at a higher value to the supplier. Additionally, there was no evidence to show that the appellant paid a higher amount to the supplier than the declared value.

4. Referring to precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that unsigned and unauthenticated documents, such as the printout, were insufficient to enhance the value of imported goods. The burden of proving undervaluation rested on the Revenue, requiring them to demonstrate that the transaction value was not reflective of the actual sale value. In the absence of contemporaneous evidence or proof of special circumstances, the transaction value declared by the appellant was upheld as the assessable value.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant. The decision highlighted the importance of authentic and contemporaneous evidence in determining the assessable value of imported goods, placing the burden of proof on the Revenue to establish any undervaluation conclusively.