2008 (5) TMI 211 - AT - Customs

Lower authority had rejected the declared invoice value by the appellants and has enhanced the value of the impugned goods - Trade Commissioner has clearly indicated that the price charged for import of 12000 MT of Anhydrous Milk fat (issue in this appeal) was correct as a result of detailed investigation - revenue has not produced any contrary evidence no evidence of payment of any amount above the invoice price no manipulation in invoice price - invoice value cannot be enhanced

Issues:
1. Appeal against order-in-appeal setting aside adjudicating authority's decision on low import prices.
2. Justification of import price by the respondent.
3. Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) and setting aside of impugned order.
4. Argument by revenue on low declared prices and contrary imports.
5. Argument by respondent on correctness of declared value and supporting evidence.
6. Commissioner (Appeals) findings on rejection of declared value, import quantity, supplier, and lack of evidence.
7. Consideration of submissions and records by the tribunal.

Issue 1:
The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal setting aside the decision of the adjudicating authority regarding low import prices declared by the respondent. The respondent had imported "Anhydrous Milk Fat (Butter Oil)" at a price lower than prevailing international prices, contemporary imports, and domestic prices of similar goods. An inquiry was initiated to ascertain the reasons behind the low prices.

Issue 2:
The respondent was asked to justify the import price based on indicators raised by the department. The respondent provided replies to the queries raised by the adjudicating authority, leading to the authority loading the value of the imported goods. The respondent argued that the declared value was correct, supported by evidence from the Trade Commissioner of New Zealand.

Issue 3:
Aggrieved by the decision, the respondent appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who considered the contentions raised in the appeal memorandum and set aside the impugned order. The revenue, represented by the SDR, argued that the declared prices were significantly low and should be based on contrary imports prevalent during the relevant period, urging that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in setting aside the original order.

Issue 4:
The revenue contended that the imported goods' value for assessment should not have been reduced by a substantial amount per metric ton, emphasizing the need for consistency with prevailing import prices. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel argued that the imported goods' value was accurate, referencing a letter from the Trade Commissioner confirming the correctness of the declared value.

Issue 5:
The Commissioner (Appeals) made detailed findings, highlighting the rejection of the declared invoice value by the lower authority based on evidence of a single import of lesser quantity at a higher price. The Commissioner considered various aspects, including the quantity of imported goods, supplier credibility, absence of evidence of price manipulation, and compliance with valuation rules, ultimately supporting the respondent's position.

Issue 6:
The Trade Commissioner's letter further supported the respondent's claim, confirming the correctness of the price for the import of 12,000 metric tons of Anhydrous Milkfat. The tribunal noted the absence of contrary evidence from the revenue and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s well-reasoned decision, rejecting the revenue's appeal and affirming the correctness of the declared value.

In conclusion, the tribunal thoroughly analyzed the issues raised, considered the evidence and submissions from both parties, and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision based on the supporting documentation and lack of contradictory evidence presented by the revenue.

← Previous Next →