1991 (9) TMI 192 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the assessable value of imported Selenium Metal Powder.
2. Validity of the declared invoice price as the transaction value.
3. Justification for adopting a higher price based on contemporaneous imports.
4. Onus of proving misdeclaration and the role of computer print-outs as evidence.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of the assessable value of imported Selenium Metal Powder:
The main issue revolves around whether the invoice price of US $ 7.50 per kg. (CIF) should be accepted as the assessable value or if a higher price of US $ 16.53 per kg. (CIF) should be adopted based on other contemporaneous imports. The Additional Collector determined the assessable value to be US $ 16.53 per kg. under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, based on the transaction values of identical goods imported during the relevant period.

2. Validity of the declared invoice price as the transaction value:
The appellants argued that the declared invoice price should be accepted as the transaction value under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, as there was no evidence of any relationship between the buyer and seller, nor any additional payments made beyond the invoice price. However, the Additional Collector found that the contract for importing 25 tonnes of Selenium Metal Powder at US $ 7.50 per kg. was not substantiated, and only 1.5 tonnes were imported without evidence of the remaining quantity. Therefore, the declared price could not be accepted as the transaction value under Rule 4.

3. Justification for adopting a higher price based on contemporaneous imports:
The adjudicating authority relied on a computer print-out showing imports of identical goods at prices ranging between US $ 17.16 and US $ 21 per kg. CIF during March-April 1989 and another consignment at US $ 16.53 per kg. CIF in July 1989. The appellants contested this by presenting evidence of imports at lower prices, but these were not contemporaneous with the disputed import. The tribunal upheld the Additional Collector's decision to adopt the lower of the contemporaneous prices, US $ 16.53 per kg., as the transaction value under Rule 5.

4. Onus of proving misdeclaration and the role of computer print-outs as evidence:
The appellants argued that the department did not provide sufficient opportunity to examine the Bill of Entry related to the consignment cleared by M/s. Amco Batteries and that the onus of proving misdeclaration was not met. The department, however, relied on Section 138 (C) of the Customs Act, 1962, allowing the use of computer print-outs as legitimate evidence. The tribunal found that the department had adequately justified the higher assessable value based on contemporaneous imports and that the appellants' evidence of lower prices was not contemporaneous.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the assessable value of the imported Selenium Metal Powder should be determined based on a CIF price of US $ 16.53 per kg., as justified by contemporaneous imports. The appeal was otherwise rejected, affirming the Additional Collector's decision.