Import duty dispute resolved in favor of appellant due to lack of evidence by Revenue.

The appellant imported goods, facing under-valuation suspicions by Revenue. The appellant agreed to pay duty based on Revenue's value proposal pending adjudication. Revenue sought to enhance the value significantly, leading to the appeal. The adjudicating authority rejected the transaction value due to alleged tax avoidance and discrepancies. However, the Tribunal overturned this decision, emphasizing Revenue's failure to provide tangible evidence. The appellant's presentation of contemporaneous imports and challenges to Revenue's backward calculations were crucial in setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
- Under-valuation of goods
- Rejection of transaction value
- Contemporaneous imports and value determination
- Backward calculations for value determination

Under-valuation of goods:
The appellant imported drawer slides and declared them under Customs Tariff Heading 8302. Revenue suspected under-valuation based on market inquiries and seized the goods. Further investigation revealed the appellant's purchase on high seas sales basis. Statements from involved parties were recorded. Pending adjudication, the appellant agreed to pay duty based on the Revenue's value. The Revenue proposed to enhance the value significantly, leading to the present appeal.

Rejection of transaction value:
The adjudicating authority rejected the transaction value, stating the importer used another firm's name to avoid taxes, and the goods were purchased from a trader, not the manufacturer. The authority also noted discrepancies in descriptions and market inquiries. However, the Tribunal found these reasons irrelevant to the value determination. The onus was on Revenue to provide tangible evidence to reject the transaction value, which was not done, leading to the impugned order being overturned.

Contemporaneous imports and value determination:
The appellant presented Bills of Entry for identical goods imported at Kolkata at the same value. The adjudicating authority rejected these on minor grounds, which the Tribunal found unconvincing. The value of contemporaneous imports was near the declared value, making the enhancement unsustainable. The Tribunal dismissed distinctions made based on high seas sales, emphasizing the relevance of contemporaneous imports for value determination.

Backward calculations for value determination:
Revenue calculated the value based on backward calculations, including expenses and profit margins. The appellant challenged these calculations, citing higher expenses and profit margins due to various factors. The Tribunal noted the validity of the appellant's arguments regarding expenses but found Revenue's calculations lacking supporting evidence. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---