2013 (3) TMI 66 - AT - Customs

Transaction value of imported goods - matter was reviewed and the appellant was asked to produce evidence to show that the relationship has not influenced the transaction value in respect of the present Bills of Entry. - held that - From the records it is seen that in both the SVB orders passed in 2002 and 2005, the department had accepted the transaction value declared by the appellant on the ground that the relationship did not influence the transaction value. However, in 2008, they have made departure from the previous practice without having any reason for taking a different stand. From the records it is seen that the appellant was asked about the prices declared for third party imports. They had also produced evidences by way of invoices of the imports made by third parties and also reasons why the prices declared by them is lower when compared to those declared by the third parties. Matter remanded back to the original adjudicating authority to consider the information furnished by the appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 8/MCH/DC/SVB/DG/2012 dated 20/01/2012.
- Challenge of loading declared invoice value by 100% without valid reasons.
- Failure of lower appellate authority to consider submissions made by the appellant.
- Dismissal of appeal without examination by lower appellate authority.
- Departure from previous practice without justification in 2008.
- Rejection of appellant's declared prices without providing reasons.
- Need for reassessment considering factors affecting prices in international trade transactions.

Analysis:
The appeal in this case was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 8/MCH/DC/SVB/DG/2012 dated 20/01/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai - I. The appellant, M/s. Daniel Measurement Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara, filed a bill of entry at Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai, which led to a case being registered with the Special Valuation Branch due to a relationship between the supplier and the Indian buyer. Despite previous acceptance of transaction value by the department in earlier orders, in this instance, the adjudicating authority unreasonably loaded the declared invoice value by 100% without valid justification. The lower appellate authority dismissed the appeal without examining the matter or considering the appellant's submissions, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant argued that the department had previously accepted transaction values in similar situations and failed to provide a valid reason for the sudden deviation in this case. They presented details of third-party imports to justify their declared prices, highlighting differences in specifications, quantities, and additional items imported by third parties affecting prices. The Tribunal noted that these factors do influence international trade prices and criticized the Revenue for rejecting the appellant's declared prices without proper justification. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering all relevant factors affecting prices in international trade transactions.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority. The authority was directed to consider the information provided by the appellant regarding third-party imports, taking into account various factors such as commercial level of transactions, specifications of products, and other relevant aspects. The authority was instructed to determine whether the transaction value declared by the appellant could be accepted and, if not, to decide the extent of loading. The appellant was to be given a reasonable opportunity to defend their claim for acceptance of the transaction value. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a thorough reassessment based on relevant factors influencing international trade prices.