2008 (1) TMI 91 - SC - Customs

Import of Orange Shock Tube at reduced price because of increase in quantum of import revenue proceeded against importer on account of undervaluation as declared value is substantially lower then actual value revenue not placed any contemporaneous import of identical goods - Merely because the supplier was holding 30% of equity in share capital of importer, doesn t establish mutuality of interest as no equity was held by the importer in foreign company trancaction value acceptable

Issues:
1. Customs valuation - determination of assessable value under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Relationship between buyer and seller influencing price reduction.
3. Application of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 - Rule 4 and Rule 5.
4. Interpretation of mutuality of interest in the context of equity holding.
5. Burden of proof on Revenue to establish undervaluation.

Issue 1: Customs Valuation - Determination of Assessable Value under Customs Act, 1962:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue under Section 130A of the Customs Act against the Tribunal's order allowing the appeal of the respondent-assessee regarding the valuation of imported goods. The Customs Officer found a substantial reduction in the declared value of imported tubes compared to previous imports. The respondent attributed this reduction to an agreement with the foreign supplier to purchase 100% of their annual requirement. The Dy. Commissioner of Customs rejected the declared value, citing Section 14(1A) of the Act and Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, determining the value under Rule 5 at an enhanced value. The Tribunal, following precedents, held that the Department failed to prove enhancement under Rule 5, thus allowing the respondent's appeal.

Issue 2: Relationship Between Buyer and Seller Influencing Price Reduction:
The Customs Officer noted a relationship between the exporter and the respondent, as the exporter held 30% equity in the respondent. This relationship influenced the price reduction, leading to a reassessment of the value. However, the Tribunal found that the holding of equity did not establish mutuality of interest, as the respondent did not hold any equity in the exporter, following established precedents.

Issue 3: Application of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 - Rule 4 and Rule 5:
The Customs Officer applied Rule 4 initially but later determined the value under Rule 5 due to the related relationship between the buyer and seller. The Tribunal upheld the respondent's appeal, emphasizing the lack of proof by the Revenue to establish undervaluation under Rule 5.

Issue 4: Interpretation of Mutuality of Interest in the Context of Equity Holding:
The Supreme Court agreed with the Tribunal's interpretation that the equity holding did not establish mutuality of interest, as the respondent did not hold equity in the exporter. This finding was based on established precedents and the specific circumstances of the case.

Issue 5: Burden of Proof on Revenue to Establish Undervaluation:
The Supreme Court highlighted that the burden to prove undervaluation by the respondent lay with the Revenue. The Court noted the substantial increase in import volume by the respondent over the years, indicating a valid reason for price reduction. The lack of evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical goods at a higher price during the material time led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision in favor of the respondent-assessee, emphasizing the lack of merit in the Revenue's case and leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

← Previous Next →