2012 (11) TMI 364 - AT - Customs

Under valuation of part of imported goods - loading of value on the imported goods made by the adjudicating authority on the basis of contemporaneous imports made at Chennai Port - Held that - No case has been booked against the appellant against those imports made at JNPT Port and therefore, the value of the imports made at JNPT Port are to be considered as contemporaneous imports. Contemporaneous imports made at Chennai Port, are observed as non-comparable. Therefore, loading the value on the basis of contemporaneous imports at Chennai Port are not sustainable. Order set aside Country of origin - packing box of goods mentioned country of origin as Japan instead of China as mentioned in the B/E - Held that - It is found that appellant has produced letter issued by their supplier contending themselves to be actual manufacturer and that impugned goods were meant for supply to Japan and as Japan refused to take delivery of the goods, therefore, these goods were exported to the appellant and contended that the country of origin shown on the box as Japan is their mistake. Revenue has not controverted these two letters nor they have denied the genuineness. Therefore, the appellant has discharged their onus of proving that the country of origin is China.

Summary

Issues:
1. Loading of value on imported goods based on contemporaneous imports at Chennai Port.
2. Determination of the country of origin.
3. Allegations of undervaluation.

Analysis:

1. Loading of Value on Imported Goods:
The appellant challenged the loading of value on imported goods by the adjudicating authority, which was based on contemporaneous imports made at Chennai Port. The appellant imported electronic goods, and discrepancies were found regarding the country of origin mentioned on the packing box compared to the Bill of Entry. The adjudicating authority undervalued 4 out of 8 items based on similar goods imported at Chennai Port. The appellant contended that the goods were of China origin, supported by certificates from the foreign supplier. The appellant also argued that the value loaded was unjustified as they provided Bills of Entries for similar goods cleared at JNPT Port, which were not considered by the authorities.

2. Determination of Country of Origin:
The Tribunal examined the issue of the country of origin. The appellant presented letters from the supplier confirming that the goods were initially meant for Japan but were later exported to the appellant after rejection by the Japanese customer. The supplier acknowledged the error in marking the country of origin as Japan on the box and apologized for the mistake. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not dispute the authenticity of these letters, and thus, the appellant successfully proved that the country of origin was China.

3. Allegations of Undervaluation:
Regarding the allegations of undervaluation, the adjudicating authority relied on contemporaneous imports at Chennai Port of similar goods. However, the appellant argued that the goods imported at Chennai Port were of a different quality compared to their imports. The appellant also highlighted their own contemporaneous imports at JNPT Port, which were not considered by the authorities. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the value loading based on non-comparable goods from Chennai Port was not sustainable. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the value loading and allowed the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and providing consequential relief based on the detailed analysis of the issues related to the loading of value, determination of the country of origin, and allegations of undervaluation.