2017 (5) TMI 226 - AT - Customs

Valuation - import of desiccated coconut from Sri Lanka - transaction value - fixation of value on the basis of evidence received from Sri Lankan authorities - appellant claims that from the copies of documents procured by DRI from Sri Lankan Customs, it cannot be reasonably inferred that the goods covered by the documents are the same goods which were received by the importer, accordingly he prayed that the transaction value should be accepted - Held that - It is seen from the proceedings before the lower authorities that copies of these documents were made available to the importer which clearly indicated the bill of lading number, container number, supplier name, quantity and description of goods, etc., which exactly match with the respective details in the Bills of Entry - The appellant could not produce any material evidences to support the declared value - rejection of transaction value upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Issues:
1. Challenge against the OIA No.466/2007 dated 25.5.2007 passed by the Commissioner (A), Cochin regarding the valuation of imported desiccated coconut.
2. Acceptance of transaction value based on documents filed before the Sri Lankan Customs by the supplier.
3. Dispute regarding the rejection of the transaction value of $400 per MT declared by the importer.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the OIA No.466/2007 dated 25.5.2007 passed by the Commissioner (A), Cochin, concerning the import of two consignments of desiccated coconut from Sri Lanka. The appellant declared the value of $400 per MT for both consignments. However, after investigations by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), the value was reassessed to $930 and $955 per MT. The adjudicating authority confirmed the differential customs duty, confiscated the goods, allowed redemption upon payment of a fine, and imposed a penalty on the importer. The Commissioner (A) upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal.

2. One of the main grounds raised in the appeal was the acceptance of the transaction value based on documents filed before the Sri Lankan Customs by the supplier. The appellant argued that the adjudicating authority blindly accepted the price without further investigation, as it was not evident from the documents that the goods were meant for supply to the appellant. The appellant contended that only the price declared in the invoices, i.e., $400 per MT, had been certified as paid by the bank, and thus, the rejection of this value was improper.

3. During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel argued that the documents procured by the DRI from Sri Lankan Customs did not conclusively prove that the goods covered were the same as those received by the importer. On the other hand, the Revenue's representative argued that the invoices produced to the Sri Lankan customs by the supplier showed transaction values of $930 and $955 per MT, which were also admitted by the importer's representative. The charge of undervaluation was deemed established based on this evidence.

4. The Tribunal noted that the DRI investigation revealed that the documents filed by the supplier in Sri Lanka matched the details in the Bills of Entry filed by the appellant. The appellant did not dispute the correlation between the export documents and the documents filed with the Bill of Entry. Despite being provided with these documents, the appellant failed to produce material evidence to support the declared value of $400 per MT. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the decision to reject the transaction value and re-fix it based on the evidence from Sri Lankan authorities.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeal and affirming the decision regarding the valuation of the imported desiccated coconut. The order was pronounced in open court on 03/05/2017.

← Previous Next →