9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Misdeclaration of value of imported goods. 2. Reliance on manufacturer's quotation for enhancing value. 3. Application of Customs Valuation Rules in determining the value. 4. Justification for enhancement of value based on quotation. 5. Examination of contemporaneous evidence for determining assessable value. Analysis: The appeal in this case arose from an Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Customs, Madras, concerning the importation of bulbs for Automobile Lamps. The Department contested the declared value based on an invoice from M/s. Subh Traders, Singapore, leading to an investigation. The goods were identified as 'Halogen Auto Lamps' of Japanese origin, 'Phoenix Brand,' with a manufacturer's quotation of Yen 95/pc fob. The Department argued that the declared value of S $ 0.21/pc did not reflect the correct value. A show cause notice was issued for enhancement of value, confiscation of goods under Customs Act sections 111(d) and 111(m), and imposition of penalties under section 112. The appellants contended that the transaction value should not be discarded, citing previous cases where similar goods were cleared at the same price at different ports. They argued against relying solely on the manufacturer's quotation for value enhancement, emphasizing that the quotation was a forward sale price and not contemporaneous evidence. The Collector determined the value at Yen 66/pc fob, ordering confiscation of goods and imposing fines. The JDR argued that misdeclaration occurred as the goods were of Japanese origin, not Singapore as declared. He supported reliance on manufacturer's quotations for value determination, citing previous decisions. The appellants disputed this, highlighting that the Department failed to prove undervaluation and did not consider similar imports during the relevant period. The Tribunal found that the Department's reliance on manufacturer's quotations for value enhancement was not sufficient without corroborating evidence. It emphasized the need for examination of contemporaneous evidence and adherence to Customs Valuation Rules. The matter was remanded for a detailed inquiry to determine the value based on relevant evidence, with a directive to disclose such evidence and provide a hearing to the appellants. Failure to establish undervaluation with contemporaneous evidence would lead to acceptance of the declared price as the transaction value, disposing of the appeal accordingly.
|
