2003 (12) TMI 115 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Dispute on Customs valuation of Sodium Hydrosulphite and Citric Acid imports.

Detailed Analysis:
The subject proceedings involved a dispute on the Customs valuation of 100 MT of Sodium Hydrosulphite and 200 MT of Citric Acid imported by M/s. Varsha Plastic Pvt. Ltd., Kandla. The declared value for assessment was US $ 600 per MT for Sodium Hydrosulphite and US $ 785 per MT for Citric Acid. A Show Cause Notice was issued alleging undervaluation based on an investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The Commissioner of Customs, Kandla increased the assessable value to US $ 800 per MT for Sodium Hydrosulphite and US $ 935 per MT for Citric Acid, citing higher values of similar imports and a confession by the Director of the importing company. The appellants contested the allegation, arguing that the declared value was accurate and no misdeclaration occurred. They presented evidence of lower import prices by another party, which was rejected as provisional. The appellants' explanation for the quantity difference was also dismissed as it was not presented earlier in the investigation proceedings. The appellants emphasized that the transaction value should be the basis for customs valuation, citing legal precedents.

During the appeals, the appellants reiterated that the proceedings were contrary to established legal principles, emphasizing the importance of transaction value in customs valuation. They referred to legal decisions stating that reduced prices for buyers should not be rejected unless certain conditions are met. The appellants argued that the Revenue authority did not rely on relevant data about contemporary prices and highlighted that the evidence of import at comparable prices by another party was unjustly rejected as provisional. The statements of the Director of the importing company consistently maintained that the declared price was the full transaction value.

Upon reviewing the records and submissions, the Tribunal found that the impugned order lacked sufficient evidence. The rejection of transaction value based on comparable imports was deemed unreliable due to significant differences in quantities. The evidence of lower import prices by another party was unjustly dismissed as provisional. Despite seeking information on finalized assessments, no response was received from the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla. The Director of the importing company consistently denied under-valuation, leading the Tribunal to conclude that the finding on under-valuation and subsequent demands could not be sustained. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellant with consequential relief.