1996 (12) TMI 212 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of value of imported goods by Customs Department.
2. Burden of proof in cases of undervaluation.
3. Requirement of providing evidence in customs valuation cases.
4. Application of Customs Act, 1962 in determining assessable value.
5. Compliance with procedural requirements in customs valuation disputes.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the assessment of the value of synthetic rubber imported by the appellants through Bombay Customs House. The Customs Department sought to increase the assessable value based on a contemporary import of similar goods at a higher price from the same supplier.

2. The appellants argued that the burden to prove undervaluation lies on the revenue department, and they must provide sufficient evidence for rebuttal as per Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. They relied on legal precedents to support their contention that a mere comparison of invoices is insufficient to prove undervaluation.

3. The Customs Department contended that the appellants had waived the show cause notice and were granted a personal hearing where the charge of undervaluation was explained. They argued that the assessable value can be based on contemporary imports as per legal precedents cited.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence presented and emphasized that the onus of proving undervaluation rests on the department. The appellants provided explanations for the price difference, attributing it to negotiated terms of payment. However, the department failed to provide crucial documents such as the contract or indent acceptance of the import at a higher price.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the department failed to establish a case for discarding the value declared by the appellants. The appellants demonstrated that the price was arrived at through normal negotiations without any undue influence. The absence of crucial documents and failure to provide evidence led to the dismissal of the department's case. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants.