2001 (8) TMI 247 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Consideration of submissions and rejection of transaction value.
2. Comparison of imported goods and determination of value.
3. Application of Supreme Court judgments and Customs Valuation Rules.
4. Justification of declared value and evidence of contemporaneous imports.
5. Imposition of penalties and confiscation of goods.

Summary:

1. Consideration of submissions and rejection of transaction value:
The Tribunal noted that the original authority did not consider all the submissions made by the appellants in their written submission dated 7-10-2000. The appellants argued that there was no undervaluation for bulk purchase and the negotiated price should be accepted in light of the Supreme Court judgment in Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CCE. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner did not address these pleas and remanded the matter for de novo consideration.

2. Comparison of imported goods and determination of value:
The appellants declared the goods as "Nylon and PVC coated fabrics" imported from Taiwan. The department initiated proceedings based on a higher price declared by another importer, M/s. Rahul Enterprises, for "PVC cloth" from the same country. The appellants contended that the goods were not the same in nature, quality, and quantity, and the transaction value could not be discarded without evidence of contemporaneous imports. The Tribunal remanded the matter for reconsideration within the parameters laid down by the Tribunal.

3. Application of Supreme Court judgments and Customs Valuation Rules:
The Commissioner, on de novo consideration, rejected the declared value under Rule 10(A) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988, as the importers failed to justify the truth and accuracy of the declared value. The Commissioner noted that there was no documentary evidence to show that the importers were given a special discount for bulk purchase. The Commissioner applied Rule 6 to fix the price based on the transaction value of similar goods imported by M/s. Rahul Enterprises.

4. Justification of declared value and evidence of contemporaneous imports:
The appellants argued that the goods imported by M/s. Rahul Enterprises were not identical and the quantity of their import was five times more. The Tribunal found that the goods should be identical and not just similar, corresponding identically in nature, quality, quantity, place, and time of origin. The Tribunal held that the Revenue did not produce evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical goods and the transaction value could not be rejected without strong evidence.

5. Imposition of penalties and confiscation of goods:
The Commissioner ordered the enhancement of value from US $0.40 per meter to US $0.65 per meter and imposed penalties u/s 112(a) and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, for deliberate mis-declaration and evasion of duty. The Tribunal, however, set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief, as the Revenue failed to prove undervaluation with contemporaneous evidence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order, and granted consequential relief to the appellants, emphasizing the need for strong evidence of contemporaneous imports to reject the transaction value.