2016 (2) TMI 8 - AT - Customs

Valuation - rejection of transaction value of the imported and poppy seeds from Turkey - validity of documents relied upon by hte revenue - Revenue submitted that, the differential amount is sent to the suppliers by unofficial channels, the assertion of the appellants that the entire amount has been sent through banking channels is incorrect. - Held that - The revenue relied upon copies of export invoices and declarations submitted by the suppliers/the exporters before the Turkish authorities. - It is settled law that in order to be admissible as evidence, the copies of foreign documents are required to be tested and signed by the Turkish Customs authorities which they were not. Further it is settled law that the documents must bear the signature of the officers making the enquiries and be certified as true copies. It is to be noted that the originals have not been made available even to the Tribunal and unauthenticated and unsigned documents were relied upon, which could not be used, even if they may have been forwarded by authorities to the investigating agency through official channels. As regards the insurance documents as well as entries from Comtrade and UK public ledger and other journals it is now well settled law that such information cannot be used to doubt or reject the transaction value. We also note that the adjudicating authority has refused to look at other contemporaneous imports, which are not the subject matter of the present show cause notice on the ground that there was gross undervaluation being done by the trade. We find that if the value of contemporaneous imports were accepted and the transaction value in those case are not doubted by the revenue in the assessment orders, it is not understandable why the said values could not have been used for the purposes of comparing the same with the value of the consignments in question in these appeals. It is to be held that the impugned orders are unsustainable and liable to be set aside and we do so. - Demand and penalty set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reliance on insurance documents for loading transaction value.
2. Use of foreign export declarations for enhancing transaction value.
3. Application of Comtrade, UK Public Ledger, and similar sources for determining transaction value.
4. Imposition of penalties on the appellants.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Reliance on Insurance Documents for Loading Transaction Value:
The appellants argued that insurance documents cannot be used to ascertain the valuation of goods, citing the Supreme Court decision in Orient Enterprises (1997) and other cases. The court agreed, stating that insurance values might be inflated for coverage purposes and do not reflect the actual transaction value. The adjudicating authority's reliance on these documents was deemed incorrect.

2. Use of Foreign Export Declarations for Enhancing Transaction Value:
The appellants contested the use of Turkish export declarations, arguing that these documents were not attested, certified, or authenticated. The court found that the documents lacked proper certification and signatures, making them inadmissible as evidence. The originals were not available, and the photocopies were not verified, violating established legal standards for evidence admissibility as per East Punjab Traders (1997).

3. Application of Comtrade, UK Public Ledger, and Similar Sources for Determining Transaction Value:
The adjudicating authority used data from Comtrade and the UK Public Ledger to determine the value of poppy seeds, which the appellants argued was erroneous. The court upheld this argument, referencing multiple cases (e.g., Prabhu Dayal Prem Chand, Jindal Strips Ltd.) that established such trade bulletins and reports cannot be the basis for valuation. The court found the adjudicating authority's reliance on these sources to be incorrect and not aligned with settled law.

4. Imposition of Penalties on the Appellants:
Given the court's findings on the inadmissibility of the evidence used to determine undervaluation, the penalties imposed under Sections 114AA and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, were also deemed unsustainable. The court noted that the confessional statements used against some appellants were retracted and lacked evidentiary value. Consequently, the penalties were set aside.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the impugned orders were unsustainable due to reliance on inadmissible evidence and incorrect application of valuation methods. All appeals were allowed, and the penalties were annulled, providing consequential relief to the appellants.