2005 (1) TMI 153 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against acceptance of transaction value for imported goods
- Comparison of declared value with contemporaneous evidence
- Rejection of EDI data for assessment purposes

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by the Revenue against the decision of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) accepting the transaction value declared by the respondents for the imported goods. The goods in question were "Secondary/Defective CRGO electrical steel strip cuttings in irregular shapes and sizes" imported from Germany, UK, and USA. The original authority had rejected the declared value and relied on EDI Data related to imports of similar goods by other parties to assess the value of the goods imported by the respondents.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the transaction value after determining that the value of the irregularly shaped and sized strip cuttings was not comparable to the standard strip cuttings. During the hearing, the Revenue reiterated their grounds for appeal, citing the Supreme Court's judgment that Customs authorities are not bound by the invoiced value and can use contemporaneous evidence to challenge the declared value. However, the respondents' counsel defended the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) by highlighting that the grounds for accepting the transaction value were not contested by the Revenue.

3. Upon examination, the Tribunal found that the goods were indeed declared as "Secondary/Defective CRGO electrical steel strip cuttings in irregular shapes and sizes" by the respondents in all relevant Bills of Entry. The original authority's finding that comparison of such materials cannot be made due to quality, damage, shape, and size differences was not challenged by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the EDI Data used by the Revenue did not account for the irregularities in the goods imported by the respondents and upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to reject the EDI value in favor of the declared transaction value.

4. The Tribunal also addressed the reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment cited by the Revenue, clarifying that the case law did not apply to the current situation where the Commissioner (Appeals) had validly rejected the contemporaneous evidence presented by the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeals of the Revenue, instructing the assessing authority to finalize the assessments promptly and provide relief to the assessees as necessary.