2015 (12) TMI 645 - AT - Customs

Determination of assessable value of the Ball Valve (Brass Bib Clock) - Held that - There is virtually no evidence on record to indicate that the transaction value of the imported goods is not correct. Revenue has not bothered to collect any evidence to first reject the transaction value. In fact, the adjudicating authority has not even doubted the transaction value and has simplicitor adopted the assessable value, as opined by the Chartered Accountant - supplier of the goods has given a certificate saying that the goods were manufactured at their factory for various other customers, who did not take delivery and the same were sold as stock lot on as is where is terms without any guarantee. In such a scenario, the transaction value as reflected in the invoice issued by the foreign supplier has to be considered as the correct assessable value when Revenue has not produced any evidence to rebut the same. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Assessable value determination of imported goods, validity of Chartered Accountant's opinion, sufficiency of evidence by Revenue to challenge transaction value

In this case, the main issue pertains to the assessable value of Ball Valve (Brass Bib Clock) imported by the appellant, initially declared at 0.16 US$ per piece. The Revenue, dissatisfied with this declared value, had the consignment examined by a Government Register Valuer and Chartered Accountant, who valued the consignment at &8377; 44,76,000. Subsequently, the adjudicating authority enhanced the value based on this opinion, leading to differential duty, interest, penalty, and confiscation of goods with a redemption fine of &8377; 8 Lakhs.

Upon review, the Appellate Tribunal found that there was a lack of evidence to support the Revenue's challenge to the transaction value. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had not questioned the transaction value and had simply adopted the value provided by the Chartered Accountant. Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted that the supplier of the goods had confirmed that the items were stock lots sold without any guarantee, which should be considered in determining the assessable value. As the Revenue failed to present evidence to refute the transaction value, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and ruled in favor of the appellant, granting consequential relief.

The judgment underscores the importance of sufficient evidence to challenge declared values of imported goods and emphasizes the need for a thorough assessment before enhancing the assessable value based solely on expert opinions. Additionally, the case highlights the significance of considering all relevant factors, such as the circumstances of the sale and the nature of the goods, in determining the correct assessable value to prevent unjust penalties or confiscation.