2000 (7) TMI 152 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether Customs authorities can reject transaction value and invoices for imported goods based on unauthenticated quotation obtained from supplier.

Summary:

The appeal considered whether Customs authorities were justified in rejecting the transaction value and invoices for imported "toys" based on an unauthenticated quotation obtained from the supplier by the DRI unit. The importer argued that the quotation was not verified or signed, and that the transaction value was a negotiated price without proof of undervaluation. The Commissioner upheld the decision, stating that reliance on electronic documents like faxes and emails is common in modern business, and the goods imported matched the description in other documents. The appellant cited legal precedents, including a Supreme Court case, to argue against the use of unauthenticated quotations for valuation. The department defended its valuation based on the quotation, but the appellant contended that the Commissioner could not unilaterally grant a discount on the supplier's quotation.

After considering the arguments, the Tribunal found that the transaction value was negotiated between the parties, and the burden of proving undervaluation rested with the Revenue. The Tribunal held that the unauthenticated quotation used for valuation enhancement was not permissible under the Customs Act and relevant case law. Relying on previous judgments, including one by the Apex Court, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that unauthenticated quotations cannot be the basis for enhancing transaction value.