2005 (8) TMI 242 - AT - Customs

Valuation (Customs) - Transaction Value of Imported goods - Import Price per unit - Contemporaneous import of comparable goods imported from China from traders in U.A.E - Evidence - HELD THAT - The law provides for six different methods of valuation for the simple reason that the transaction value method may not be proper in all cases and the Customs authorities cannot be forced to accept the declared value in every case notwithstanding how ridiculously low these are. It may not also be possible in every doubtful case for the customs officers to establish payments made over and above the invoice price without information from the originating and intermediate countries which may not always be forthcoming. When the extra payments can be established, the transaction value method itself can be used, otherwise one of the other methods can be used. Therefore, the precedent decisions of the Tribunal cited by the learned SDR approving valuation on the basis of comparable value of contemporaneous imports are sound and the same fully support the basis of valuation adopted in this case. Moreover, the different methods of valuation, whether based on transaction value, or comparable value (of identical/similar goods), or deductive value based on resale price, or computed value based on cost and profit etc. are designed to arrive at an equitable customs value for the purpose of charging customs duty. The importers cannot have a grievance so long as one of these methods is fairly used, unless he is trying to secure a grossly undue duty advantage as in this case by declaring a value which is 25-30% of the value declared by competing importers importing similar goods. Equity considerations justify levy of duty to the same extent on similar goods. As regards the Advisory Opinion 2.1 of the Technical Committee on Customs Valuation cited by the learned advocate for the appellants, we note that the citation is out of context as in this case Article 1 (Rule 4) method of valuation has been discarded. In any case, the said Opinion recognizes power of the Customs authorities to satisfy themselves as to the truth and accuracy of any declaration made by the importers under Article 17 of the Agreement on Customs Valuation Rule 10(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 . The opinion merely says that it is permissible to have different transaction values of comparable goods under the Transaction Value method. As seen in this case also, the comparable goods were found to have been imported at different prices in a price range of US 1860 to 1950 PMT. However, the said Advisory Opinion cannot be taken to support a ridiculously low price of US 500 PMT. We also note that the Advisory Opinion given by the Technical Committee on Customs Valuation does not bind any country nor it has the same status as of the Decisions of the WTO Committee on Customs Valuation. The Advisory Opinions have no legal force and are not acceptable on the face of contrary decisions rendered by the Tribunal and the courts in India. Thus, we are of the opinion that the valuation approved by the lower Appellate Authority after taking into consideration all submissions made by the appellants in his detailed order is proper and the same does not require any interference. Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported goods under Customs Valuation Rules, 1988

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Valuation of imported goods based on declared value versus comparable value
The appellants imported goods from U.A.E. and declared a unit price significantly lower than the prevailing market price of similar goods imported from China during the same period. The Customs authorities assessed the goods at a higher comparable price, leading to the appeal. The appellants argued that the declared value should be accepted under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, citing the decision in Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs. However, the department contended that the declared value was unrealistically low compared to comparable imports, invoking the decision in Commissioner of Customs v. Shibani Engineers Ltd. The Tribunal found that the declared value was unreasonably low, justifying the use of comparable value for valuation.

Issue 2: Application of Customs Act, 1962 and GATT provisions
The Tribunal referred to Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, which mandates customs valuation to align with ordinary competitive prices in international trade. It highlighted the importance of the transaction value method under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, and its requirement to correspond to actual prices paid. The Tribunal emphasized that when declared values are significantly lower than prevailing market prices, the transaction value method is inapplicable, and valuation based on comparable imports is justified. The decision in Rajkumar Knitting Mills was cited to support the interpretation of Section 14(1) and the binding nature of such interpretations on Courts and Tribunals.

Issue 3: Use of different valuation methods under Customs Valuation Rules
The Tribunal acknowledged the availability of six different valuation methods under the Customs Valuation Rules to ensure equitable customs valuation. It emphasized that Customs authorities are not obligated to accept declared values that are unreasonably low and highlighted the importance of using alternative valuation methods in such cases. The Tribunal upheld the use of comparable value for goods when declared values do not reflect ordinary competitive prices, ensuring consistency with international trade practices and preventing undue duty advantages for importers.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, affirming the valuation approved by the lower Appellate Authority, which considered all submissions and case laws. The decision emphasized the importance of aligning customs valuation with prevailing market prices, using comparable value when declared values are unreasonably low, and ensuring equity in customs duty assessment based on international trade principles and legal provisions.