2018 (9) TMI 1285 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - Ordinary Plywood with Veneer Face Grade B - enhancement of value - no rejection of Transaction Value - Held that - Revenue has nowhere attacked the transaction value and has not produced any evidence to show that the transaction value was wrong. It is well settled law that for rejecting the assessable value declared by the importer on the basis of the invoices so raised by the foreign supplier. Revenue has to first reject the said transaction value by the production of sufficient evidence to disapprove the same. In the present case, there is no effort by the Revenue to first reject the transaction value. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Undervaluation of imported goods.
2. Validity of enhancement of value based on Alert Circular.
3. Requirement of sufficient evidence to reject transaction value.
4. Precedent regarding admission of transaction value as assessable value.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported a consignment of "Ordinary Plywood with Veneer Face Grade B" declaring a value of 200 USD per Cubic Meter. Customs Officers found discrepancies in the thickness of the goods during examination, leading to a higher total volume than declared. The Director of the importing firm admitted mis-declarations in quantity and value, and previous imports in Moradabad were also found to have undervalued goods, prompting the initiation of proceedings against the appellant.

2. The Revenue relied on an Alert Circular to enhance the value of the imported goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this enhancement under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods Rules, 2007), citing the need for uniform valuation of sensitive commodities to prevent diversion of cargo. However, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not attack the transaction value or provide evidence to disprove it. The Alert Circulars were deemed invalid for enhancement purposes, with reference to a previous Tribunal decision emphasizing the admission of transaction value as assessable value unless proven incorrect.

3. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of sufficient evidence to reject the transaction value declared by the importer, emphasizing that the Revenue must first disprove the transaction value with substantial evidence before resorting to alternative valuation methods. In this case, the Revenue's failure to challenge the transaction value and lack of evidence to reject it undermined the validity of the value enhancement based on the Alert Circulars.

4. Citing a precedent set by the Tribunal in a previous case, the judgment reiterated the principle that the transaction value should be accepted as the assessable value unless proven incorrect with independent evidence. The decision to set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals was based on the lack of legal validity in using Alert Circulars for value enhancement without sufficient evidence to reject the transaction value.