2007 (5) TMI 233 - AT - Customs

Import from Hong Kong - Enhancement of value by custom authorities on basis of photocopies of export declaration made by HongKong authorities no any other material available to prove that importer-applicant has paid more value than declared enhancement of value is not justified moreover appellant s goods are not of same brand and comparable to goods quoted in declarations

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported consignments of ICs, transistors, etc. under three Bills of Entry.

The dispute in the present appeal revolves around the valuation of imported consignments of integrated circuits (ICs), transistors, etc., under three Bills of Entry. The prices declared by the appellants were challenged based on export declarations, computer printouts, proforma invoices, and quotations. The Commissioner enhanced the prices for one Bill of Entry based on export declarations obtained by the Director of Revenue Intelligence from the Hong Kong customs. The appellants argued that the photocopies of export declarations from the Hong Kong supplier were unsigned and unauthenticated, and should not be the sole basis for alleging under-valuation. They contended that without additional evidence proving the invoices were not genuine, the photocopies could not be used against them. The Commissioner, however, relied on the export declarations received from Hong Kong customs, asserting their authenticity despite the appellants' objections.

Regarding one Bill of Entry, the Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was held that photocopies of export declarations procured by Hong Kong customs, even if forwarded to India, cannot be considered genuine documents. The Tribunal highlighted the possibility of suppliers inflating export values to claim benefits, making such documents unreliable for enhancing import prices. The law was further discussed, emphasizing that the absence of signatures on documents could not raise presumptions under the Customs Act. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's attempt to enhance values based solely on photocopies of export declarations from Italian/US Customs, emphasizing the need for additional evidence of higher payments to foreign suppliers.

For the other two Bills of Entry, the enhancement of prices was based on computer printouts, proforma invoices, quotations, and a letter indicating prevailing market prices. The Tribunal ruled that such documents could not be used to justify price increases, especially when the goods were not of the same brand or comparable. A specific letter was discredited as unreliable, as the issuing company denied its authenticity. The Tribunal reiterated that photocopies of documents could not be trusted, especially when the authenticity of the source was in question. The appellants also presented evidence of contemporaneous imports at the same price, which was not adequately addressed by the adjudicating authority, and no contradictory evidence was provided by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, emphasizing the lack of sufficient evidence to support the price enhancements imposed by the Commissioner.