2008 (7) TMI 67 - SC - Central Excise

Court emphasizes identical goods for valuation under Customs Act, shifts burden of proof to Revenue.

The court ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the requirement for goods to be identical, not just similar, for valuation under Section 14 of the ... Point in dispute in the present appeal is concluded by two decisions of SC Court in Eicher Tractors Limited Haryana and Mirah Exports Pvt. Ltd. - Tribunal has also held that Revenue has not produced the evidence of contemporaneous imports in terms of identical goods of same nature, quantity & quality – finding recorded by the Tribunal is a pure finding of fact which cannot be interfered with by this Court – Appeal of revenue is dismissed Issues:1. Interpretation of Customs Act - Section 142. Burden of proof in cases of undervaluation3. Consideration of contemporaneous imports for valuationInterpretation of Customs Act - Section 14:The judgment discusses the interpretation of Section 14 of the Customs Act in the context of determining the value of goods for customs purposes. The Court emphasized that goods should be identical and not just similar to be treated on par with the value declared by Revenue. The Commissioner's conclusion that the goods were similar was deemed incorrect, as the goods in question were not identical. The Court highlighted that goods must correspond identically in terms of quality, quantity, place of origin, and time of origin. The judgment cited previous decisions to support the requirement of goods being identical for valuation purposes under Section 14.Burden of proof in cases of undervaluation:The judgment addressed the burden of proof in cases of undervaluation, stating that the burden lies on the Revenue to prove undervaluation with strong evidence. The Court noted that the Revenue failed to discharge this burden by not producing evidence of contemporaneous imports in terms of identical goods of the same nature, quantity, and quality. The Court emphasized that the transaction value cannot be rejected without strong evidence initially presented by the Revenue to prove undervaluation.Consideration of contemporaneous imports for valuation:The judgment highlighted the importance of considering contemporaneous imports for valuation purposes. The Court emphasized that in the absence of contemporaneous nature of goods by another party, their Bill of Entry cannot be considered as that of identical goods for enhancing the value of the appellant's goods under Section 14 of the Customs Act. The Court noted that the Revenue did not produce evidence of contemporaneous imports with identical goods of the same nature, quantity, and quality. Consequently, the Court accepted the appellant's plea that there was a negotiated price and a significant difference in quantity compared to the other party, leading to the allowance of the appeal and setting aside the impugned order with consequential relief.