2010 (5) TMI 292 - AT - Customs

Valuation - The said show cause notice culminated into an order passed by the adjudicating authority and confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) enhancing the transaction value from USD 1250 PMT to USD 1330 PMT and confirmed the differential duty of Rs. 2,45,880/-. On appeal, the above order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal. Held that - no evidence to show that quality and quantity of goods identical and that supplier also same. Transaction value duly supported by contract and letter of credit opened in bank cannot be dismissed lightly on bais of doubt in absence of clinching evidenc to show flowback of money. Assessee s appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in declared price of imported goods.
2. Enhancement of transaction value.
3. Rejection of transaction value by authorities.
4. Evidence presented by the appellants.
5. Validity of contract and letter of credit.
6. Justification for setting aside the impugned order.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a discrepancy in the declared price of 190 MT of Styrene Monomer imported from Malaysia, declared at USD 1250 PMT, while identical goods were imported around USD 1330 PMT. A show cause notice was issued proposing enhancement of transaction value, culminating in an order by the adjudicating authority and confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), resulting in a differential duty of Rs. 2,45,880/-, leading to the present appeal.

2. The appellants produced evidence before the Commissioner (Appeals) to support the correctness of the transaction value, including a contract with the supplier, a Letter of Credit from the bank, commercial invoices, and market price data. Despite doubts raised by the department, the transaction value supported by contractual documents and a letter of credit should not be dismissed lightly in the absence of conclusive evidence against it.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted doubts regarding the transaction value but acknowledged the lack of conclusive evidence to reject it. The doubt raised by the department based on the price of identical goods imported at a higher price in the same vessel was deemed insufficient, especially considering the absence of contract date and evidence of identical quality, quantity, and supplier.

4. The Tribunal found no justification to uphold the impugned order, setting it aside and allowing the appeal. The decision emphasized the importance of contractual evidence and the lack of substantial evidence to reject the declared transaction value, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants based on the presented documentation and lack of concrete proof against the transaction value.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, evidence presented, and the reasoning behind setting aside the impugned order by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad.