9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Valuation of imported goods, compliance with Valuation Rules
In this appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai, the primary issue was the valuation for the purpose of assessment of three autoconers imported by the appellant. The goods, being second hand and of German manufacture supplied from Japan, were provisionally assessed to duty due to the officer's view that the value was underdeclared. The Assistant Commissioner, upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), determined the value of goods by depreciating from the original value due to the importer's failure to produce manufacturer's invoices. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision regarding the valuation of similar goods and emphasized that unless there was a basis for indicating the transaction value was not genuine, the value should be governed by Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules. In the present case, the Tribunal found that there was nothing to suggest the price declared by the importer was not genuine. The examining officer's remarks only indicated that the declared value "appears low as per the conditions of machines." The Tribunal noted that the Valuation Rules require the importer to furnish the manufacturer's invoice if requested, but in this case, the appellant did not have the manufacturer's invoice. The Tribunal reasoned that for second hand goods, it is unreasonable to expect the manufacturer's invoice to accompany the consignment to every purchaser. Therefore, the absence of the manufacturer's invoice should not be held against the importer, and there was no justification for not accepting the transaction value. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant regarding the valuation of the imported goods.
|
