2016 (3) TMI 219 - AT - Customs

Finalisation of the assessment of 13 Bills of Entry - Appellant imported Ceramic Tiles and filed 17 Bills of Entry out of which 13 Bills of Entry was assessed provisionally and 4 Bills of Entry were cleared after assessment to loaded value which was accepted by the appellant. After that the 13 Bills of Entry was finalised at the same rate as in the case of finally assessed 4 Bills of Entry and directed the appellant to pay differential duty but the appellant opposed it and produced contract in respect of 13 Bills of Entry and submitted that proving of under valuation lies on Department - Held that the 4 Bills of Entry was assessed after loading the value as per contemporaneous import data (NIDB Data) and the same was accepted by the appellant and clearance was affected on payment of duty. Also the appellant produced contract in which no date has been mentioned nor any period of validity has been mentioned. The invoices are totally bereft of any mention of contract number. It is significant to note that they have imported only 113x20 containers of Ceramic tiles from supplier but, as per contract they are supposed to import 60x20 containers per month. The contract does not indicate the Port of import for the consignment. The rate in the contract would not show whether it is FOB/ CIF basis. It is particularly noted that the certain size of tiles imported by the appellant are not tallied with the contract. Therefore, the contract is discarded and the price of contemporaneous imports at / around the time of import of impugned goods at higher value, as evident from 4 Bills of Entry is adopted . - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of imported Ceramic tiles under Customs Tariff Act, Burden of proof on valuation, Rejection of contract by authorities, Application of contemporaneous import data, Legal precedents on appeal filing and valuation rules.

Assessment of Imported Ceramic Tiles:
The appellant imported Ceramic tiles classified under Customs Heading No. 69081090 and filed 17 Bills of Entry. 13 Bills of Entry were provisionally assessed due to missing documents, while the remaining 4 were cleared at a loaded value accepted by the appellant. Show Cause Notices were issued for finalizing assessment on the 13 Bills of Entry, resulting in a direction to pay differential duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, leading to the present case.

Burden of Proof on Valuation and Rejection of Contract:
The appellant argued that the burden of proving undervaluation lies on the department and cited legal precedents. The authorities rejected the contract produced by the appellant due to discrepancies, including missing dates, unclear validity period, mismatched import quantities, and lack of specified port of import. The authorities concluded that the contract was not reliable and justified using contemporaneous import data for valuation.

Application of Contemporaneous Import Data:
The adjudicating authority finalized the assessment based on the value of the 4 Bills of Entry, which were cleared at a loaded value. The appellant's contract was deemed unreliable, leading to the adoption of contemporaneous import data for valuation. Both lower authorities rejected the contract, and the appellant failed to refute this, supporting the use of higher value from the 4 Bills of Entry.

Legal Precedents on Appeal Filing and Valuation Rules:
The appellant relied on legal precedents regarding appeal filing and burden of proof on valuation. However, the Tribunal found these precedents inapplicable as the department had not failed to file an appeal in the earlier Bills of Entry, and the valuation was based on contemporaneous import data. Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules was also invoked, allowing the proper officer to doubt declared values and request further information, which, if unsatisfactory, could lead to valuation based on loaded prices.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant based on the assessment of the imported Ceramic tiles, burden of proof on valuation, rejection of the contract, application of contemporaneous import data, and the inapplicability of certain legal precedents on appeal filing and valuation rules.