2016 (2) TMI 819 - SC - Customs

Valuation - demand of differential duty due to undervaluation of import of goods - import of wood veneers of various thickness - Held that - CESTAT has found that the documents procured by the Revenue do not bear any signatures and are photocopies which are not even attested and accordingly, the assessable value could not be enhanced on the basis of such documents. In arriving at this conclusion, while doubting the genuineness of those documents, the CESTAT has kept in mind the provisions of Section 139 of the Customs Act and has relied upon various judgments of the Tribunal on this issue. - Order of tribunal sustained - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues: Alleged under-invoicing by the assessee, admissibility of documents produced by the Revenue, correctness of CESTAT's decision.

In this case, the Respondent, an assessee, imported "wood veneers" from Singapore, and the Revenue alleged under-invoicing. The Revenue issued show cause notices and passed adjudication orders confirming the demand of differential duty. The Revenue relied on documents from Italian customs authorities showing higher prices of the goods, but the assessee challenged their admissibility, arguing lack of authentication. The CESTAT accepted the assessee's argument, noting the documents were not signed or attested, and therefore, the assessable value couldn't be enhanced based on them. The CESTAT referred to Section 139 of the Customs Act and previous Tribunal judgments. The Supreme Court upheld the CESTAT's decision, finding no error in its detailed analysis. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the CESTAT's ruling.