2015 (11) TMI 1226 - AT - Customs

Valuation - Enhancement in value of goods - claim of benefit of preferential rate of duty - denial of the benefit of Notification No. 321/76-Cus dated 2.8.1976 - Held that - From the documents, we find that the adjudicating authority has compared the incomparable. The certificate of origin is issued by PIC showing the date of invoice as 12.3.1984 whereas the invoice submitted with the Bill of Entry is issued by the exporter i.e. M/s. Transicom Burma and will naturally be of a later date i.e. on 28.3.1984. On proper appreciation of the documents as well as the fact that the notification No. 321/76 does not require the COO to be issued by any designated authority, in our view the two certificates of origin indicating the COO as Burma cannot be discarded. - Bill of Lading itself says that freight is prepaid. The L/C which would have been definite proof could not be furnished by the appellant after a gap of almost 20 years. In any case Revenue has not submitted any evidence to show that freight and insurance were paid separately. Revenue s case is based on technicalities on account of so called discrepancies some of which we have clarified in the para above. Revenue s case is that the COO issued from Singapore does not indicate the invoice number. Departure date i.e. 28.3.1984 indicated in the COO issued at Singapore tallies with the date of invoice issued by M/s. Transicom. The adjudicating authority has also stated that whereas the COO issued at Singapore shows the weight of the consignment as 203.26 MT. the COO issued by PIC at Burma indicates the weight as 219.6 MTs. We observe that the very same COO issued at Burma indicates total gross weight -219.6 MT total net weight 203.3 MT. It is clear that the authorities below did not compare documents properly. Otherwise they would have been able to reconcile the discrepancies. Another discrepancy pointed out by the adjudicating authority is in the invoices submitted along with the Bill of Entry and the invoice submitted later. Although, they bear the same number and date, the first invoice does not indicate CIF basis whereas the other copy indicates CIF basis. It appears that when the appellant were asked to submit whether shipment is on FOB or CIF basis, they have added CIF on the copy of the invoice submitted later. - there is sufficient co-relation between various documents to support the view that the invoice is on CIF basis. Revenue has not been able to verify from the Bank through which L/C was negotiated to prove otherwise. Therefore the declared value merits acceptance and the benefit of notification No. 321/76 is admissible. Consequently, the duty demand is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of assessable value and eligibility for Notification No. 321/76-Cus.

Analysis:
The appellant imported Crude Glycerin and claimed the benefit of a preferential duty rate under Notification No. 321/76. However, objections were raised regarding the terms of the contract and the country of origin certificate not being pasted on the Bill of Entry, leading to a duty demand of &8377; 12,39,767. The appellant argued that the Certificate of Origin and other documents proved Burmese origin, despite discrepancies in vessel names and invoice dates. The Tribunal found that the certificates of origin supported Burmese origin, and discrepancies were clarified. The Tribunal accepted the certificates and disregarded technical discrepancies raised by the Revenue.

Analysis:
Regarding the basis of the invoice, the Tribunal noted that the Bill of Lading indicated prepaid freight, but the L/C, crucial for proof, could not be provided after almost 20 years. The Revenue's case relied on technical discrepancies, which the Tribunal clarified, emphasizing the coherence of documents. Discrepancies in weights and invoice details were explained, with the Tribunal highlighting the lack of proper document comparison by lower authorities. Despite discrepancies in invoice details, the Tribunal found sufficient correlation between documents to support the CIF basis claim. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant should benefit from the doubt due to lack of evidence from Revenue, setting aside the duty demand and granting the benefit of Notification No. 321/76.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the acceptance of the declared value and the admissibility of the Notification benefit. The duty demand was set aside, and interest payment was deemed unnecessary based on the findings.