9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Determining the correct value of imported goods for levy of duty based on contract price versus contemporaneous prices of similar goods. Analysis: The appellant imported hot rolled stainless steel coils of 304 grade at a declared price lower than contemporaneous prices for similar goods. The department enhanced the value of the goods to US $1700 PMT CIF based on Section 14(1)A of the Customs Act and valuation rules. The appellant argued that the contract price of US $1485 PMT CIF should be accepted, citing the relevance of the price at the time of contracting. The appellant also contended that the manufacturer's invoice should be considered the best evidence of the price. However, the department relied on contemporaneous invoices for similar goods priced higher, leading to the rejection of the appellant's plea. The lower authorities followed valuation rules and considered the difference in grade and other factors while arriving at the enhanced value. The appellant was given ample opportunity to produce evidence in their favor during the proceedings. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the contract price should govern the assessment, citing a Supreme Court decision that the relevant date for determining value is the date of importation. The Tribunal also emphasized that contemporaneous prices of similar goods are more reliable indicators of value than contract prices. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appeal and confirming the enhanced value of the imported goods at US $1700 PMT CIF. The decision highlights the importance of considering contemporaneous prices of similar goods in determining the value for customs duty assessment, rather than solely relying on contract prices.
|
