1999 (2) TMI 234 - Commissioner - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Enhancement of value of imported goods by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs.
2. Comparison of prices based on Platt's price list.
3. Valuation rules under the Customs Act, 1988.
4. Determination of transaction value for re-processed goods.
5. Consideration of contemporaneous import prices.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, enhancing the value of imported goods from CIF US $ 645.05 PMT to CIF US $ 765.01 PMT. The goods, ABS 20% Glass filled Regrind, were imported based on a contract with the supplier at a specific price. The test report confirmed the goods' description as re-processed, not prime quality, leading to a discrepancy in valuation.

2. The appellant argued that the loading of enhanced value was done arbitrarily, ignoring the Valuation Rules, 1988. It was contended that in cases of under-valuation, corroborative evidence based on contemporaneous goods' prices should be relied upon. The appellant highlighted that the goods were purchased from a trader, making the transaction value valid, especially for re-processed goods, which cannot be compared directly with prime material prices from Platt's list.

3. The Commissioner observed that the goods were re-processed, not prime quality, and hence, relying solely on Platt's list prices with a discount was inappropriate. The comparison between re-processed goods and prime goods was deemed invalid. The Commissioner emphasized that the valuation rules were not followed properly, and the order was passed without logical consideration, leading to an incorrect determination of the scrap value.

4. Ultimately, the Commissioner set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and directing the lower authority to accept the invoice value for the imported goods. The decision was based on the understanding that re-processed goods required a different valuation approach than prime goods, and the contemporaneous import prices were not adequately established to support the enhanced valuation. The appeal was disposed of with these directions.