2003 (2) TMI 375 - AT - Customs

Customs Tribunal overturns value loading on imported goods, rules in favor of appellant. Authorities erred in evidence consideration.

The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner of Customs' order loading the value of imported T.T. Balls based on contemporary import, ruling in favor of the ... Valuation - Contemporaneous Imports - Evidence - Adjudication Issues:Challenge against order loading value based on contemporary import.Analysis:The appeal concerned the challenge against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs affirming the rejection of the transaction value declared by the importer and loading the value based on contemporary import. The specific issue revolved around the import of T.T. Balls from a Chinese supplier. The appellant imported 223 cartons of Sport goods, with the focus being on the T.T. Balls imported under a specific Bill of Entry. The declared prices for different grades of T.T. Balls were provided by the appellants. The Customs Authorities raised queries regarding the correctness of the declared value, prompting the appellants to produce manufacturer's invoices and a supplier's certificate. The Original Authority rejected the contention that the goods were of inferior grade and assessed the goods at a higher value, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the decision.The appellant argued that both lower authorities erred in concluding that they agreed to load the value without producing documentary evidence supporting the imported goods' value. It was contended that the alleged contemporaneous invoice used for loading was not made available to the appellants, rendering the order unsustainable in law. The Tribunal directed the production of the computer print-outs relied upon for enhancing the price. Upon examination, it was found that the import considered contemporaneous was from August '98, not relevant to the current case, leading to the inflated value determination.The Tribunal agreed with the appellant that there was no justification to reject the transaction value declared, as the assessing and appellate authorities overlooked the documents supporting the declared value. The appellant had provided relevant invoices and certificates substantiating the correctness of the declared value, which were ignored by the authorities. Additionally, the appellant highlighted a subsequent Bill of Entry for the same goods from the same supplier, where a lower declared value was accepted by the Customs Authorities, further supporting the appellant's position. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the objection to loading the price was an afterthought, noting that the appellant consistently disputed it throughout the proceedings. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting the appellant all consequential reliefs.