2017 (2) TMI 187 - AT - Customs

Valuation - misdecaration of value - 15 KVA Fixed Ground Power Unit - contemporaneous import of the identical goods by Indian Air Force - Held that - It can be seen from the reproduced certificate of the supplier that it categorically states that the supply of goods which are imported is only US 3000 and the list price which is enclosed to the said letter also indicates the same - though the adjudicating authority had reasons to reject the declared price due to the documents found in the package, he should not have jumped the gun and adopted as value without going through the Rules sequentially i.e. 4,5,6,7 and 8. If Customs Valuation Rules are applied, the absence of contemporaneous imports with certificate and invoice of the supplier not being controverted, the value which is declared by the appellant needs to be accepted as there is no valid reason for adopting or enhancing the valuation of the imports made by the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of 15 KVA Fixed Ground Power Unit

Analysis:
The appeal was against an order regarding the valuation of a 15 KVA Fixed Ground Power Unit. The appellant declared the purchase value as US$ 3000 per unit, but authorities found an invoice showing the unit price @ US$ 11,900 plus freight charges of US$ 650. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and imposed a duty and penalty. The first appellate authority remanded the matter for reconsideration. The appellant argued that the static frequency converter was mistakenly invoiced, and they had ordered 4 units. The lower authorities upheld the demand, but the appellate tribunal found discrepancies in their observations. The tribunal noted that the appellant had provided the purchase order from Indian Air Force, a certificate from the foreign supplier, and the list price, which were not considered by the lower authorities. The tribunal concluded that the declared value should be accepted as per Customs Valuation Rules, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

In the detailed analysis, the tribunal highlighted that the lower authorities did not consider crucial documents provided by the appellant, such as the purchase order, certificate from the foreign supplier, and list price. These documents supported the appellant's declared value of US $3000 per unit. The tribunal emphasized that the adjudicating authority should have followed the Customs Valuation Rules sequentially and considered the absence of contemporaneous imports with certificates and invoices. The tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.