Tribunal Upholds Rejection of Transaction Value for Imported Nylon Flock Fabrics

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the transaction value and affirmed the assessment of imported Nylon Flock Fabrics at US $1.90 per meter. The appellant's argument of misdescription was dismissed due to discrepancies in goods descriptions and test reports confirming the material as Nylon Flocks. The Tribunal found the Customs authorities justified in concluding misdeclaration, rejecting the appellant's claims. Additionally, the Tribunal deemed the appellant's payment method suspicious, lacking satisfactory explanation, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and supporting the higher assessment based on the CIF value of contemporaneous import.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge against Order-in-Original demanding differential duty for imported Nylon Flock Fabrics under Bills of Entry, misdeclaration of goods, comparison with contemporaneous import, rejection of transaction value, assessment at US $ 1.90 per metre.

Analysis:
The appellant contested the demand for differential duty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur, for importing Nylon Flock Fabrics under Bills of Entry dated 3-9-96. The goods were declared as Velvet width 54" Flocking Fabrics, but authorities suspected undervaluation. The appellant argued that the goods were different from the contemporaneous import, described as 'lining material' Nylon Tricot flocking. The appellant relied on Basant Industries v. CC and Eicher Tractors v. Commissioner to support their case of misdescription and rejection of the transaction value. However, the Revenue contended that the goods were mis-declared, as confirmed by test reports showing Nylon Flocks applied on knitted base fabric. The Revenue considered the CIF value of contemporaneous import at US $ 1.90 per metre for assessment.

The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's contentions, noting discrepancies in the descriptions of goods in invoices and confirmation letters. The test report confirmed the material as Nylon Flocks, not velvet as claimed by the appellant. Consequently, the Customs authorities were deemed justified in concluding misdescription of the imported goods. The Tribunal also rejected the appellant's argument against applying the US $ 1.90 per metre value, citing insufficient differences in imported quantities and lack of evidence supporting lower rates for the appellant.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the transaction value and affirmed the assessment at US $ 1.90 per metre. It found the appellant's payment to a Singapore party for goods imported from Korea suspicious, with no satisfactory explanation provided. The absence of evidence supporting the payment method led to the sustainability of the finding that the invoice was not genuine. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, supporting the Commissioner's decision to assess the goods at the higher rate based on the CIF value of contemporaneous import.

---