9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 946 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - import of industrial robot for the purpose of international exhibition of machine tools - rejection of negotiated value on the ground that the appellant had not furnished any justifiable reason for reduction of the value from the value declared in the ATA Carnet for arriving at the negotiated transaction value as claimed by them - HELD THAT - The goods imported are under ATA Carnet are allowed duty-free in terms of Notification No. 157/1990-Cus. dated 28.3.1990. As seen from the ATA Carnet documents, it is clearly shown that the goods are meant for exhibition at IMTEX 2009 India and the value shown therein is EUR 55900 was meant for the purpose of bringing the goods into India for the exhibition and these goods as per the ATA Carnet Regulations are to be exported within six months. During the relevant time, the sale of such goods was permitted on payment of Customs duty with prior approval from Government of India. The question here arises is whether the price adopted by the Customs which is commercial value as per the ATA Carnet form meant for exhibition can be taken as the transaction value. As per Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for delivery at the time and place of importation is to be considered. Hence, if any value has to be rejected, the Proper Officer has to produce necessary documents or evidence to reject the value. In the instant case, the Invoice dated 23.06.2009 issued by M/s. Saielo to M/s. Ace Designers Ltd is on record to show that the item has been purchased for EUR 30000. There is also a purchase order No. 4500000176 dated 12.06.2009 on record, which also shows the value as EUR 30000. In the case of CCE vs. Galaxy Entertainment (I) Pvt Ltd 2007 (5) TMI 53 - SUPREME COURT , the Hon ble Supreme Court held that when there was a negotiated price and this negotiated price had to be accepted as the value of the imported item, if the customs do not find any cogent reasons for rejecting the same. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the valuation of imported goods under ATA Carnet for exhibition purposes and the rejection of negotiated transaction value by the Revenue Department. Valuation of Imported Goods under ATA Carnet: The appellant, a manufacturer of machine tools, imported an industrial robot for exhibition purposes under ATA Carnet. The appellant purchased the robot at a negotiated price of EU 30000, lower than the value declared in the ATA Carnet as EU 55900. The Revenue Department rejected the negotiated value, stating lack of justification and supporting documents for the price reduction. The appellant argued that the ATA Carnet value is not the transaction value as defined under the Customs Act, and the negotiated price should be accepted unless there are suspicions of illegality. The Tribunal noted that the goods were imported duty-free under the ATA Carnet for exhibition at IMTEX 2009 India, with the intention of export within six months. The Tribunal emphasized that the transaction value under Section 14 of the Customs Act should be the price actually paid or payable for the goods. The appellant provided invoices and purchase orders showing the negotiated price of EU 30000, supporting the authenticity of the transaction value. Rejection of Negotiated Transaction Value: The Revenue Department rejected the negotiated transaction value of the imported industrial robot, arguing lack of justification and supporting documents for the price reduction from the ATA Carnet value. The appellant contended that the negotiated price should be accepted as the value of the imported item, citing judicial precedents emphasizing the acceptance of negotiated prices in the absence of cogent reasons for rejection. The Tribunal referred to Supreme Court judgments highlighting the importance of acting on the price actually paid unless supported by material evidence for rejection. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the acceptance of the negotiated transaction value unless valid reasons for rejection are presented. Separate Judgement Delivered: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
