2006 (9) TMI 64 - AT - Customs

Tribunal overturns Customs valuation order for 'Sun Control Film' import, ruling in favor of appellant

GARG DIESEL’S Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KOLKATA

The Tribunal set aside the Customs Valuation order enhancing the value of imported 'Sun Control Film' at Kolkata Port in February 2003. It ruled in favor ... Valuation (Customs)- Appellant demanded for enhancement of value under the several grounds- Authority considering all the factors and decided that enhancement of value is not sustainable. Issues:Customs Valuation of imported consignment 'Sun Control Film' at Kolkata Port in February 2003.Analysis:The dispute in this case revolves around the Customs Valuation of a consignment of 'Sun Control Film' imported at Kolkata Port in February 2003. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs had ordered the goods to be assessed at a value of Rs. 2.34/sq. ft., citing an earlier import in March 2003 at Chennai at a similar value. The appellant contested this enhancement, arguing that the import was from a manufacturer and the prices were commercial. The Assistant Commissioner rejected these contentions, stating that the claim of the foreign supplier being a manufacturer was not substantiated. The Assistant Commissioner also dismissed the argument that earlier imports in October 2002 at Mumbai and Chennai were at similar prices, noting that the subsequent import in March 2003 at Chennai indicated a higher value.The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Assistant Commissioner's order, leading to the present appeal. The appellant contended that the transaction value should be the basis for assessment under the Customs Valuation Rules and that there was no evidence to doubt the commercial nature of the transaction. The appellant also highlighted an anti-dumping order indicating that 'Sun Control Film' was being dumped into India from Taiwan, suggesting that the appellant's import was not at a concessional price.On the other hand, the revenue argued that the October 2002 prices could not be the basis for assessment as they were not contemporaneous with the appellant's import. They maintained that the March 2003 price was a more accurate reflection of the import price. However, the Tribunal found that the enhancement of the price was not sustainable. It emphasized that the transaction value should be the assessable value unless there are specific exceptions under the Customs Valuation Rules. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant that the transaction price was commercial, supported by previous imports at similar prices and the fact that the transaction was with a manufacturer. The anti-dumping order further reinforced the commercial nature of the import price. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.