2016 (7) TMI 143 - AT - Customs

Valuation - Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) accepted the discounted price of import which was in the range of 87% to 97.35% - adoption of transaction value of contemporaneous imports - Held that - The Department s stand is that burden of proof to prove that the transaction value is as per contemporaneous imports is on the importer but it is not so. Actually here the onus is on the Department- Revenue to prove that the value declared by the Respondents is not correct transaction value. This burden of proof has not been discharged by the Revenue and as the facts stand the transaction value declared by the Respondents has to be accepted by the Customs. Considering the fact of assessment of identical goods as done by Kolkata Customs, which is in line with the respondent s declaration filed with the Bangalore Customs (Air Cargo Complex), and which has been sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order dated 22.6.2010 and considering the above discussions and the case laws referred above, we reject the appeal filed by the Revenue and uphold the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported goods; Challenge to order of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals); Transaction value rejection; Classification of imported goods; Assessment based on declared value.

Valuation of imported goods:
The case involved the valuation of goods imported by M/s. CMC Ltd., Mumbai, through Air Cargo Complex, Bangalore. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs rejected the declared value, citing a discount range of 87% to 97.35% and allowed a maximum discount of 55% on certain goods. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) set aside the Deputy Commissioner's decision, leading to a challenge by the Revenue before the Tribunal.

Challenge to order of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals):
The Revenue contended that the discount offered was abnormal and not proven to be a normal industry practice. They argued that the high discount could not be considered usual and should be carefully examined. The Revenue also claimed that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was not fair and legally correct.

Transaction value rejection:
M/s. CMC Ltd. defended the declared value, stating that identical imports were assessed similarly by Kolkata Customs House, and the transaction value was duly supported by back-to-back invoices and other contemporaneous documents. They argued that the burden of proof lay with the Revenue to show that the declared value was incorrect, which was not demonstrated.

Classification of imported goods:
The Respondents argued that the imported goods were rightly classified under CTH 8471, supported by relevant customs tariff rules. They emphasized that the goods were part of a package deal with negotiated prices, which should be assessed based on the transaction value satisfying Customs Act requirements.

Assessment based on declared value:
After detailed examination, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating that there was insufficient evidence for the Revenue to challenge the declared value. They highlighted that the burden of proof lay with the Revenue to establish exceptions for rejecting the transaction value, which was not met. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, citing the assessment of identical goods by Kolkata Customs House and supporting the Respondents' arguments with relevant legal precedents.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues related to the valuation of imported goods, challenges to the Commissioner (Appeals) order, rejection of transaction value, classification of goods, and assessment based on the declared value, providing a detailed overview of the legal judgment.