2016 (5) TMI 829 - AT - Customs

Import of Star Aniseeds - Mis-declaration of declared value - Enhancement of value on the basis of Spices Market Weekly - Held that - a value declared by an importer who had imported the consignment four months, after the consignment cleared, is not in consonance of the provisions of the Customs Act, as on the day of import there seems to be no contemporaneous imports and the value declared by the appellant was accepted. We are not in the position to come to a conclusion whether the imports made in May 2001, were solitary imports or regular imports. At the same time it is noted that various imports made by the appellant during the same time, the transaction value remained the same. It is also noted that revenue has not brought on records any evidence to indicate that the appellant and the supplier were in collusion to suppress the value nor there is any corroborative evidence of suppression of the value or repartition of any amount over and above the invoiced value. Therefore, in the absence of any such evidence, rejection of transaction value as declared is incorrect and such order is unsustainable. The ratio of the decision of Hon ble High Court in the case of Basant Industries 1995 (1) TMI 89 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and the decision of Tribunal in the case of Kanhaiyalal & Co. 2003 (8) TMI 423 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , would directly apply to the present case. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Import of Star Aniseeds at a declared value.
2. Rejection of declared value and enhancement by the adjudicating authority.
3. Application of contemporaneous imports price.
4. Comparison of invoices for determination of under-valuation.
5. Validity of rejection of transaction value.
6. Assessment of value by lower authorities.
7. Misdeclaration of value by the appellant.
8. Correctness of enhancement of value by lower authorities.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The appellant imported Star Aniseeds at a declared value of US $1550 /MT.

Issue 2: The declared value was rejected by the adjudicating authority and enhanced to US $7490 /MT based on the Spices Market Weekly price.

Issue 3: The first appellate authority rejected the appeal, citing the declared value as ridiculously low and used contemporaneous imports value for demanding differential duty.

Issue 4: The appellant argued that comparison of invoices is inconclusive for determining under-valuation, citing the Supreme Court case of Basant Industries.

Issue 5: The Tribunal's decision in Radhey Shyam Ratanlal and Kanhaiyalal & Co. supported the acceptance of declared value unless proven incorrect, making the rejection of transaction value incorrect.

Issue 6: The main issue was whether the appellant mis-declared the value and if the enhancement by lower authorities was justified.

Issue 7: The Tribunal found discrepancies in the reliance on contemporaneous imports, noting the imports were of different times and the value declared by the appellant was accepted.

Issue 8: The Tribunal concluded that without evidence of collusion or suppression of value, the rejection of the declared value was incorrect, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

This detailed analysis covers the various legal issues and arguments presented in the judgment, highlighting the key points and conclusions reached by the Tribunal.