2016 (6) TMI 66 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty - Import of old and used photocopier machines of Cannon brand - Enhancement in the value of imported goods - Held that - it is a settled law that in terms of provisions of Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules, the transaction value has to be accepted as the correct assessable value unless country evidence is available to show that the payments made by the importer to the exporter stand influenced by the other compelling circumstances. In view of the fact that Revenue has not advanced any evidence to show that transaction value was not correct and has in fact have not rejected the transaction value and in view of clear legal position as emerging from the various decisions of Supreme Court and Tribunal, we are of the view that transaction value was required to be adopted as correct assessable value. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported goods, correctness of transaction value, relevance of Chartered Engineers' certificates, application of Customs Valuation Rules, imposition of penalty

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI involved a case where the appellant, an importer of old and used photocopier machines, declared a transaction value for the imported goods. However, upon examination by different Chartered Engineers, discrepancies in valuation emerged. The Revenue proposed to enhance the value of the goods, impose penalties, and even confiscate the imported items. The appellant argued that the transaction value should be accepted as the correct assessable value unless evidence showed otherwise. They contended that the Chartered Engineer's report used to enhance the value was vague and did not consider the different manufacturing years of the machines. The appellant also highlighted that there was no evidence of additional payments beyond the declared transaction value. The adjudicating authority had adopted the value provided by one Chartered Engineer, leading to the imposition of penalties and confiscation. The appellant appealed against this decision.

The Tribunal analyzed the Customs Valuation Rules, emphasizing that the transaction value should be accepted unless there is evidence showing influence on the price due to specific circumstances. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents, including decisions by the Honorable Supreme Court, which upheld the importance of transaction value unless proven incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had not produced any evidence to reject the transaction value or demonstrate any influence on the price beyond what was declared. As a result, the Tribunal concluded that the transaction value should have been accepted as the correct assessable value. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, providing consequential relief.

In summary, the judgment focused on the correct valuation of imported goods, the significance of transaction value, the role of Chartered Engineers' certificates, the application of Customs Valuation Rules, and the imposition of penalties. The Tribunal stressed the importance of accepting transaction value unless there is concrete evidence to the contrary, as per legal precedents and Customs Valuation Rules.