2016 (1) TMI 326 - SC - Customs

Under-valuation of goods - comparable / identical goods - appellant argued that the products mentioned in Charts A and B could not be the basis for determining the valuation of goods mentioned in Chart D. He relied upon the reasoning of the Commissioner in this behalf and submitted that the order of the Commissioner should not have been opposed by the CESTAT. We do not agree with the aforesaid submission for more than one reason. In the first instance, the CESTAT has categorically taken note of the submission of the Revenue that majority of goods listed in Chart D are identical to goods described in Charts A and B. If that is correct, coupled with the fact that the valuation of goods insofar as Charts A and B is concerned has become final, we do not understand as to how that cannot be the basis for determining the transaction value of those goods listed in Chart D which are identical to the goods described in Charts A and B. Consequently, for this purpose, the matter is remitted back to the Commissioner. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Undervaluation of imported goods resulting in lesser payment of customs duty; Validity of order passed by CESTAT relating to Chart D; Determining valuation of goods in Chart D based on Charts A and B.

Analysis:
1. The appellant-assessee imported goods and cleared them after paying customs duty, declaring certain values in the Bill of Entries. Revenue found undervaluation through seized incriminating documents, leading to lesser duty payment.
2. Show cause notice was issued, and the Commissioner confirmed demand for Charts A and B, dropping it for Chart D. CESTAT remitted the case related to Chart D back to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication.
3. The appeal was admitted concerning goods in Chart D only. The Commissioner had dropped the demand for Chart D citing lack of sustainable evidence and legal grounds.
4. CESTAT considered Revenue's argument of using comparable prices from Charts A and B for goods in Chart D. It directed the Commissioner to re-examine the issue based on the observation that if goods in Chart D were identical to A and B, the same value should apply.
5. Appellant's counsel argued against using A and B as the basis for Chart D valuation, but CESTAT disagreed. It noted the similarity between goods in Chart D and A/B, allowing the Commissioner to use A/B values for Chart D if proven identical.
6. The matter was remitted back to the Commissioner to determine Chart D's valuation based on A/B values, with the appellant given the opportunity to contest the Revenue's stand.
7. The appeal was disposed of, emphasizing the need for proving identical goods between Charts A/B and D for valuation purposes.