1999 (11) TMI 284 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported ball bearings

The dispute in this appeal concerns the valuation of ball bearings imported by the appellants, which were of various specifications and origins, including SKF bearings and bearings from Japan, Czechoslovakia, Russia, and Rumania. The declared value of the goods was US$ 9248.55, while the department alleged the fair value to be US$ 20,189.87 based on price lists. The Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, relied on the Customs Valuation Rules and a Tribunal judgment to confirm the demand for higher duty. The appellants challenged this decision.

Analysis:

1. The transaction value as per the invoice should be accepted for assessment, but if found unacceptable, the value of similar goods should be adopted after adjustments. The department must consider evidence of prices of identical goods imported around the same time, from the same source, and in similar quantities. If this is not feasible, the best judgment under Rule 8 should be used, following earlier rules' methodology.

2. The Commissioner claimed that identical goods were not imported, which was questionable given the long history of ball bearings imports. Price lists from manufacturers like SKF and ZKL were used to determine prices of goods from other sources, despite variations in prices for similar specifications among different manufacturers.

3. The price lists relied upon were described as international but lacked clear sources, timeframes, and manufacturing countries for the goods. Some rates were not attributed to any specific entity, and the Commissioner's order did not address these discrepancies adequately.

4. The evidence provided by the department to support the determined prices was insufficient. The burden of proving undervaluation rested on Customs, as established by various judgments, including the Supreme Court's ruling in the Mirah Exports case.

5. The Commissioner failed to show contemporaneous imports of identical goods at higher prices, as required to justify the duty enhancement. The Revenue did not meet the burden of proof, leading to the appeal's allowance in favor of the appellants.