9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (10) TMI 185 - AT - CustomsValuation of Imported Goods in view of Contemporaneous Import Appellant contended that the Department has compared the price of Pregnancy Test Strip with that of Pregnancy Test Card of different size is also of not much consequence as we find that the manufacturer-supplier has quoted the same price for different sizes ranging from 2.5 mm, 3.3 mm and 4.5 mm but appellant did not demonstrate that the prices vary with the sizes CA certificate was not produced during earlier proceeding and based on local sale price is not acceptable valuation done by department upheld appeal rejected.
Issues: Valuation of imported goods - Comparison with contemporaneous imports - Application of Customs Valuation Rules - Rejection of declared value - Best judgment method of valuation
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata, the issue revolved around the valuation of 2,00,000 pieces of HCG Pregnancy Test Strip imported from China by the appellants against a specific Bill of Entry. The appellants claimed the assessment at a declared value of US $ 0.021 per piece, while the Department re-determined the value at US $ 0.09 per piece. The appellants argued that the Department's valuation was based on a different type of product, Pregnancy Test Card, and thus not comparable. The appellants also cited various case laws in support of their case and argued against relying on internet prices for valuation evidence. The Department found the declared price by the appellants abnormally low compared to similar imports, leading to doubts about the accuracy of the declared value. The Department justified its valuation based on Customs Valuation Rules, specifically Rule 10A, to reject the declared value. The Department emphasized the need for collecting duty on the proper value of goods and not an under-declared value. They also presented evidence of the market price of the same product from the same manufacturer in the local market to support their valuation. The Tribunal acknowledged the Department's use of Rule 10A for rejecting the declared value, citing the rule's purpose to address gross mis-declaration affecting Customs duties. The Tribunal agreed that doubts about the accuracy of the declared value justified its rejection, allowing the Department to use other valuation methods under the Customs Valuation Rules. The Tribunal found the Department's best judgment method of valuation under Rule 8 reasonable, considering the market price of similar goods from the same manufacturer. Regarding the comparison of different sizes of the product, the Tribunal noted that the manufacturer quoted the same price for various sizes, indicating price consistency. The Tribunal dismissed the appellants' reliance on a Chartered Accountant's Certificate for valuation, as it was not submitted earlier and remained unverified. Based on these findings, the Tribunal rejected the appeal and upheld the Department's valuation order.
|
