2014 (3) TMI 602 - AT - Customs

Valuation of goods - Rejection of transaction value adopted by assessee - Held that - The description of the goods shown by the appellant is as per the invoice issued by the supplier. During the course of investigation the Revenue has relied on the catalogue supplied by M/s Ved. International with regard to the goods having description as TL-20W/05 SLV the catalogue indicates that 05 stands for blue colour but the catalogue 4 TL-20W/05 SLV stands for ultra violet radiations. Therefore, the fact that the tube lights imported by the appellants are of ultra violet radiations or not cannot be ascertained without examination of the goods through Test Lab. Admittedly, the tube lights imported by the appellants are of blue colour but the colour description as per the catalogue relied upon by the Revenue is of actinic but the tube lights imported by the appellants are not actinic, in the absence of any evidence on record. As no samples were drawn by the Revenue to examine whether the tube lights imported by appellants and having ultra violet radiations and not test was conducted to ascertain this fact, the description of TL-20W/05 SLV cannot be relied blindly. To reject transaction value declared by the appellants, Revenue is duty bound to first ascertain the fact that goods imported by the appellants are similar to the goods imported by M/s. Ved International and to ascertain this fact, some tests are conducted, which Revenue has failed to do so. In these circumstances, it cannot be ascertained whether the impugned goods are of ultra violet radiation or not - goods are not similar goods as imported by M/s Ved. International. Therefore, the price adopted by M/s. Ved International having no relevance to the goods imported by the appellant. In these circumstances, transaction value declared by the appellant is accepted - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Enhancement of value of imported goods, differential duty demand confirmation, fine and penalty imposition based on description discrepancy.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged an order enhancing the value of imported goods, leading to a confirmed differential duty demand, fine, and penalty. The case involved the import of tube lights described as 'Phillips TL-20W/05' by the appellant, which were found to be similar to those imported by another entity, M/s. Ved International. The Revenue contended that the appellant mis-declared the goods, as the description on the cartons differed from the bill of entry. The appellant argued that their tube lights were not ultra-violet, unlike the ones imported by M/s. Ved International. The Revenue conducted a market survey, concluding that the appellant's goods were of a lower value. However, no tests were conducted to verify if the tube lights had ultra-violet radiation. The Tribunal noted that the goods imported by the appellant were blue in color, but the description of ultra-violet radiation was based on a catalogue from M/s. Ved International, without concrete evidence. As no tests were conducted to determine the similarity of goods, the Tribunal held that the appellant's declared value should be accepted, setting aside the impugned order.

This judgment highlights the importance of conducting proper tests to ascertain the similarity of imported goods before rejecting the declared value. The Tribunal emphasized the need for concrete evidence and testing to support claims of mis-declaration, especially in cases where descriptions differ but no actual verification is conducted. The decision underscores the principle that assessments should be based on factual evidence and not merely on assumptions or catalog descriptions. The appellant's argument regarding the lack of ultra-violet radiation in their goods was upheld due to the absence of conclusive testing by the Revenue. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the significance of substantiated findings in customs valuation disputes.