9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1099 - AT - CustomsValuation - import of a consignment of 79.040 MTs of LLDPE/HDPE mixed granual/powder (floor sweeping) - goods were imported at a price of US 225 PMT CIF - on examination goods found to be of US 352.35 PMT CIF - Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) on the case being remanded confirmed the valuation done by respondent and held the value at US 225 PMT CIF to be correct - whether the contention of the Revenue that the price should be at US 352.35 PMT CIF, justified? - Held that - it is observed that Commissioner(Appeals) has considered the contemporaneous import, various judgments, PLATT price and standing order dated 3-12-1999. Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) found that there is no case of extra commercial consideration that might have influenced the transaction between parties. On going through the detailed discussion of the findings of the Commissioner(Appeals), we do not find any infirmity therein, therefore the same is sustainable - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of imported goods. 2. Application of PLATT price and standing orders. 3. Comparison with contemporaneous imports. 4. Transaction value under Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. 5. Burden of proof for undervaluation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Valuation of Imported Goods: The respondent imported a consignment of mixed granules/powder and declared the price at US$ 225 PMT CIF. The Additional Commissioner assessed the goods at US$ 352.35 PMT CIF. The respondent appealed, and the Commissioner (Appeals) initially allowed the appeal, but the Tribunal remanded the case for reconsideration of contemporary imports evidence. In subsequent proceedings, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the initial valuation, leading to the current appeal by the Revenue. 2. Application of PLATT Price and Standing Orders: The Revenue argued that the valuation was based on PLATT prices, which were accepted by the trade and the department. The standing order dated 31.12.1999 allowed a discount of up to 35% from the PLATT price for floor sweepings. However, the Tribunal found that the standing order's guidelines were not applicable as the goods were mixed materials, and no evidence was provided regarding the composition of individual polymers. 3. Comparison with Contemporaneous Imports: The Revenue contended that the contemporaneous price ranged from US$ 250 to 350 PMT. However, the Tribunal observed that the department failed to prove that the contemporaneous imports were identical to the respondent's goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) also noted that the imports cited by the department had material differences in commercial level, quantity, and country of origin. 4. Transaction Value under Customs Valuation Rules, 1988: The Tribunal emphasized that the transaction value should be accepted unless there is evidence that the declared price is influenced by other considerations. The department did not provide such evidence. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the Supreme Court judgments, asserting that the transaction value should be the price actually paid or payable unless proven otherwise. 5. Burden of Proof for Undervaluation: The Tribunal highlighted that the burden of proof lies with the department to establish undervaluation. The department did not carry out necessary tests to ascertain the composition and predominant material in the floor sweepings. The Commissioner (Appeals) found no extra commercial considerations influencing the transaction and concluded that the enhancement of the assessable value was not tenable. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), stating that the department failed to establish that the goods in question were identical to those in contemporaneous imports. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the impugned order was set aside. The Tribunal reiterated that the transaction value should be accepted unless there is concrete evidence to prove otherwise.
|
