2019 (1) TMI 449 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - rejection of declared value - absence of NIDB data - reliance placed on contemporaneous imports - Held that - Admittedly, there is no documentary evidence placed on record or any contemporaneous import relied on by the lower authorities, to justify valuation at a much higher rate - It is a settled position of law that the law only recognizes an expert s opinion as an evidence and undoubtedly, data available on the internet is not the one. The Revenue can rely on contemporaneous imports alone and since the same having not been done, the impugned Order becomes unsustainable and liable to be set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported goods, Mis-declaration of value, Confiscation of goods, Penalty under Customs Act, Delay in clearance causing value acceptance

In this case, the appellant imported financial calculators from China, declared at a lower value than the authorities determined. The adjudicating authority found discrepancies in the declared value compared to market prices and NIDB data, leading to confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties. The appellant argued that delay in clearance forced them to accept enhanced values. The Commissioner of Customs partially reduced the penalties. The appellant contended that internet prices should not dictate valuation, citing expert opinion requirements. The Revenue supported the lower authorities' findings. The Tribunal noted the lack of documentary evidence to justify the higher valuation, citing Supreme Court precedents emphasizing reliance on contemporaneous imports for valuation. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, stating that the Revenue failed to rely on contemporaneous imports, making the order unsustainable and contrary to settled law. The appeal was allowed with consequential benefits as per law.