1995 (2) TMI 238 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Assessment of the value of imported almonds in shell
- Determining the assessable value under Section 14(a)(1) of the Customs Act, 1962
- Burden of proof on the Department to establish undervaluation

Analysis:

The case involved an appeal against an order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) regarding the assessable value of imported almonds in shell. The respondents imported a consignment of almonds from a supplier in California at a price of U.S. $ 0.87 per lb CIF Bombay. The Assistant Collector of Customs enhanced the assessable value to U.S. $ 1 per lb based on a different invoice. The respondents contended that the invoice value of U.S. $ 0.87 was the correct assessable value as per Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. They provided evidence of similar transactions at the same price and argued that the lower price was due to the large quantity ordered.

The Collector (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Collector's order, accepting the invoice value as the assessable value. The Department appealed, claiming that other imports of similar goods were noticed at a higher price of U.S. $ 1.03 per lb, thus the assessable value should be higher. The Department argued that the assessable value should be based on the price at which such goods are 'ordinarily sold' at the time and place of importation. The Department sought a higher assessable value of U.S. $ 1.1 per lb.

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence presented by the respondents, including contracts and invoices from different suppliers showing prices ranging from U.S. $ 0.77 to U.S. $ 0.87 per lb CIF Bombay. Additionally, a certificate from the U.S. Department of Agriculture confirmed the price of U.S. $ 0.87 per lb for almonds-in-shell sold to India. The Tribunal noted that the Department failed to provide evidence contradicting the invoice price or showing any relationship between the parties affecting the price.

Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof to establish undervaluation lies with the Department and can only be discharged with corroborated evidence. Since the respondents provided sufficient evidence of comparable transactions at the invoiced price, and the Department failed to prove otherwise, the Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals) decision. The Tribunal confirmed that the invoice price of U.S. $ 0.87 per lb represented the correct assessable value under Section 14(1)(a) and dismissed the appeal.