1985 (9) TMI 236 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of imported goods based on newspaper rates and deduced landed cost.
2. Application of Customs Act, 1962, specifically Section 14(a) and 14(b) in determining assessable value.
3. Timeliness and verification of appeals filed by the respondents.
4. Burden of proof and shifting of onus in customs valuation disputes.

Issue 1: Valuation of imported goods based on newspaper rates and deduced landed cost:
The case involved importers of Apricot Dry/Pista Kernel/Figs Dry challenging the assessment of customs duty based on rates deduced from newspapers by the Assistant Collector. The respondents argued that the deduced landed cost did not accurately reflect wholesale rates and contested the application of Section 14(l)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) found insufficient evidence of manipulation of invoices and lack of comparability between goods in newspapers and those under assessment. The Tribunal noted that the reliance on deduced landed cost was outdated post the introduction of Section 14 and emphasized the need for establishing the international trade nexus for valuation based on newspaper rates.

Issue 2: Application of Customs Act, 1962, specifically Section 14(a) and 14(b) in determining assessable value:
The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 14(a) and 14(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, governing the valuation of imported goods. It highlighted that Section 14(a) mandates the value to be based on prices in international trade, with the absence of a business interest between buyer and seller. Section 14(b) is invoked when the price is unascertainable under Section 14(a. The Tribunal stressed that Section 14(b) can only be applied when there is a specific finding that Section 14(a) cannot determine the value. It emphasized the need for contemporaneous imports and the irrelevance of deduced landed cost post the introduction of Section 14.

Issue 3: Timeliness and verification of appeals filed by the respondents:
The respondents raised objections regarding the timeliness and verification of appeals filed by the department. The Tribunal found the appeals to be filed within the stipulated time frame, rejecting objections based on verification irregularities. It differentiated the present case from precedents concerning mandatory verification requirements, asserting that the absence of proper verification was a curable irregularity and did not warrant rejection of the appeals.

Issue 4: Burden of proof and shifting of onus in customs valuation disputes:
The Tribunal addressed the burden of proof and the shifting onus in customs valuation disputes. It noted the department's reliance on the substantial difference in values but emphasized the necessity of outlining such grounds in the show cause notice. The Tribunal upheld the Collector of Customs (Appeals) findings, highlighting the importance of establishing the department's lack of alternatives before resorting to Section 14(b) valuation methods.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed all appeals and cross-objections, affirming the Collector of Customs (Appeals) decision based on the lack of merit in challenging the valuation of imported goods and the application of relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.