2012 (9) TMI 423 - AT - Customs

Enhancement of transaction value - import of sanitary items - Revenue entertained a view that the discounts mentioned in the invoice are on the higher side, they released the goods provisionally on execution of bank guarantee Held that - Value declared by the other importers is more or less same as declared by the present respondent - price list relied upon by the Revenue reflects the retail sale price of the items in the domestic market and not the export prices in the international market - price lists are merely the quotation of the prices has no reflection on the transaction value in favor of importer

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in the assessable value of imported goods.
2. Interpretation of vendor exclusivity and valuation principles.
3. Estoppel based on acceptance of enhanced value by importer.

Discrepancy in the Assessable Value:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the assessable value of imported sanitary items. The Revenue contended that the discounts mentioned in the invoice were excessive, leading to a provisional release of goods with a bank guarantee. A subsequent show cause notice aimed to enhance the assessable value based on the list price of the supplier. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the differential duty demands, but the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, prompting the Revenue's appeal.

Interpretation of Vendor Exclusivity and Valuation Principles:
The Revenue claimed that the importer was an exclusive agent of a particular supplier, which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on evidence showing the same vendor supplied goods to other importers. The valuation dispute centered on whether the price list reflected domestic retail prices or international export prices. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered certificates from the manufacturer/supplier indicating discounts available to importers and cited a Supreme Court decision to assert that price lists are not determinative of transaction value. Ultimately, the Commissioner (Appeals) sided with the importers based on the lack of contrary evidence.

Estoppel Based on Acceptance of Enhanced Value:
The Revenue argued that the importer, by clearing the goods at an enhanced value without objection, was estopped from challenging the value later. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, emphasizing that the importers had appealed the original adjudication order, indicating non-acceptance of the enhanced value. Since there was no challenge to the merits of the case, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

---