2008 (7) TMI 178 - AT - Customs

Import of machine valuation - Commissioner rejected the declared transaction value and loaded the same on the basis of the price of this machine mentioned in the supplier s price list available on internet - whether simply on the basis of the supplier s price list available on the supplier s web site, the declared transaction value can be loaded without any evidence of the contemporaneous import of identical or similar goods in comparable quantity at higher prices Held, no

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over loading declared transaction value based on supplier's price list without evidence of contemporaneous imports.

Analysis:
The case involves the appellant importing a printing machine and the dispute arises from the rejection of the declared transaction value by the Commissioner, who loaded it based on the supplier's price list without evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods at higher prices. The appellant argued that no evidence of higher prices for similar goods was provided by the Revenue, and they had sold the imported machines at prices lower than alleged by the Revenue. They relied on previous judgments to support their case, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence of under-invoicing to reject the declared value.

The Revenue contended that the importer, as the exclusive selling agent, enjoyed abnormal discounts, making the declared value unacceptable. They argued that the price mentioned in the manufacturer's price list should be the assessable value, citing Tribunal judgments to support their position.

The Tribunal carefully considered both arguments and found that during the year of import, a total of 10 similar machines were imported by the appellant from the same supplier. The Tribunal emphasized the need for evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods at higher prices to reject the declared value, as established in previous judgments. They highlighted that a price list alone is not sufficient evidence to reject the transaction value, as discounts can be granted for various reasons. The Tribunal also noted the lack of evidence proving the appellant's status as the exclusive agent, leading to the conclusion that the provisions cited by the Revenue were not applicable in this case.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of providing concrete evidence to reject declared transaction values and highlighted the need for thorough assessment based on relevant factors beyond just a supplier's price list.