2012 (12) TMI 108 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds transaction value for 'Artificial marble' & denies detention certificate appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to assess the transaction value for 'Artificial marble' and rejected the Revenue's appeal to ... Transaction value – alleged that value of the goods was significantly lower than the contemporaneous values, the adjudicating authority doubted the genuineness of the declared value and asked the appellant to provide further information – Held that:- To avoid delay, the importer can declare the higher value or can accept the enhanced value and in such cases, such value even if it is not a transaction value it will prevail - once the value enhanced is accepted, there is no need for any further action. Similarly, if the importer declares the higher value and if that is accepted by the customs authorities, naturally no case would be initiated or investigated - reliance of the adjudicating authority on contemporaneous price to reject the transaction value and to ignore the transaction value without considering the submission at all was not in order – in favor of appellants Detention charges – Held that:- Goods were neither seized nor detained is correct and therefore not giving any direction to the adjudicating authority for wavier of detention charges, is also correct Issues Involved:1. Enhancement of the assessable value by the adjudicating authority.2. Rejection of the appellant's request for a detention certificate.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Enhancement of the Assessable Value by the Adjudicating Authority:The appellant sought clearance for 'Artificial marble' at prices lower than the contemporaneous values, leading the adjudicating authority to doubt the genuineness of the declared value. The adjudicating authority rejected the transaction value and enhanced the assessable value to US$ 50 per sq.mtr. under Rule 4 of CVR, 2007. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this enhancement, directing assessment based on the transaction value. The Revenue appealed against this decision.The Revenue argued that the contract required a sales value increase of 20% each year and a fresh contract, which was not adhered to. They cited previous decisions to support the rejection of the transaction value.The appellant contended that there was no reason to doubt the transaction value since the contract was registered with customs, and previous consignments were cleared at the declared value. They argued that the supplier's letter extending the contract was valid and that the adjudicating authority failed to provide reasons for continuing to doubt the value after receiving explanations.The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that the supplier's letter unambiguously extended the contract term, and the DGFT had allowed imports at the transaction value. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority did not consider the appellant's evidence of imports at US$ 20 per sq.mtr. and relied on contemporaneous imports declared at US$ 50 per sq.mtr. without variation. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly allowed the appeal, and the Revenue's appeal lacked merit.2. Rejection of the Appellant's Request for a Detention Certificate:The appellant requested a detention certificate to waive detention and demurrage charges, which the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected based on Regulation 6(1)(1) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the goods were neither seized nor detained, and the appellant had declined warehouse facility.The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals), noting that the regulation applied only to goods detained, seized, or confiscated. Since the goods were not in such a state, the rejection of the detention certificate was correct. The appellant's appeal on this ground also lacked merit.Conclusion:Both the Revenue's appeal against the transaction value assessment and the appellant's appeal for a detention certificate were rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals)'s decisions were upheld, affirming the transaction value and denying the detention certificate.