1995 (7) TMI 172 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the correct assessable value of imported goods.
2. Rejection of invoice value.
3. Acceptance of additional evidence.
4. Relationship between buyer and seller.
5. Applicability of transaction value under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.
6. Confiscation and imposition of redemption fine.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of the Correct Assessable Value of Imported Goods:
The primary issue was whether the declared value of US $12500 per unit for the imported phototype setting/photo composing system was accurate. The adjudicating Collector compared this with another import of identical goods by M/s. Bhavana Creations at US $34850 per unit and a quoted price of US $46460 per unit from the same supplier. The Collector concluded that the correct price for assessment under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, should be US $34850 per unit, rejecting the higher quoted price of US $46460.

2. Rejection of Invoice Value:
The appellants contended that their declared price was based on verbal negotiations and that there was no written evidence of these negotiations. However, the Collector found that the appellants had not produced any substantial evidence to support the reduced price. The Tribunal upheld this finding, stating that the appellants did not meet the burden of proving that the declared price was fair and consistent with prices of similar goods imported by third parties.

3. Acceptance of Additional Evidence:
The appellants submitted additional evidence in the form of letters from their foreign suppliers and an affidavit. However, these documents were not presented before the lower authorities. The Tribunal rejected the additional evidence, stating that the letters from third parties did not establish that the price at which assessments were made in the case of M/s. Bhavana Creations was not genuine.

4. Relationship Between Buyer and Seller:
The appellants argued that they were not related persons under Rule 2(2) of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988. However, evidence showed that the appellants had entered into a distributorship agreement with the suppliers, indicating a business relationship. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants did not approach the supplier as a normal buyer in an arm's length transaction, which influenced the price.

5. Applicability of Transaction Value Under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988:
The Tribunal emphasized that for the transaction value to be accepted under Rule 4, the conditions set out in sub-rule (2) must be satisfied. The appellants failed to provide documentary evidence of negotiations or any other basis for the declared price. The Tribunal cited previous cases where the absence of such evidence led to the rejection of the transaction value.

6. Confiscation and Imposition of Redemption Fine:
The goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal agreed with the Collector's decision to impose a redemption fine but reduced the amount from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh, considering all relevant factors.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision to reject the declared invoice value and assess the goods at US $34850 per unit. The additional evidence submitted by the appellants was not accepted, and the relationship between the buyer and seller influenced the price determination. The appeal was rejected, with a reduction in the redemption fine from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh.

← Previous Next →