2018 (2) TMI 157 - AT - Customs

Valuation - rejection of declared value - safari brand wafer bars - Held that - Though a search was conducted in the premises of the respondent, nothing incriminating was unearthed. The value has been proposed to enhance on the basis of the price available in the local market and on cash bills for purchase of safari chocolates. It is not clear whether the cash bills pertain to safari chocolate or safari wafers - there are no reasons to reject the price declared by the respondents - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Department's appeal against the Commissioner's order accepting the declared retail price of safari brand wafer bars and dropping penal proceedings.

Analysis:
The department filed an appeal against the Commissioner's decision, which accepted the declared retail price of safari brand wafer bars and directed the assessment accordingly, dropping the proposed penal proceedings. The department contended that the declared unit price of the safari brand wafers was enhanced by the assessing group, leading to suspicion of under-invoicing. Market enquiry revealed a higher selling price than the declared value. The goods were seized, provisionally released on deposit, and a show cause notice was issued proposing an enhanced value per piece of safari bar wafer. The Commissioner was criticized for accepting the declared price and rejecting the market-based price reflected in customs officers' enquiries.

On the respondent's behalf, it was argued that the declared price was based on a sales contract and the manufacturer's invoice, which should be considered the best evidence of the imported goods' price. The reliance on cash bills from the local market for enhancing the value was challenged, as those bills pertained to safari brand chocolates, not wafers. The Commissioner's decision to reject the enhancement proposal and uphold the declared value was supported by the respondent.

After hearing both parties and reviewing the records, the Tribunal found that the manufacturer's invoice produced by the respondent was genuine and should not have been rejected by the department. The basis for proposing an enhanced value from local market prices and cash bills was unclear, especially regarding whether the bills related to safari chocolates or wafers. Consequently, the Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's decision to accept the price declared by the respondent as the correct value. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the department's appeal.