Best judgment customs valuation upheld where importer failed to prove invoice value and Section 28 limitation did not apply.

Where an importer failed to produce satisfactory evidence supporting the declared invoice value, the customs authorities were justified in disregarding a later auditor's clarification and order acknowledgments that appeared to be an afterthought. In the absence of material enabling valuation under the prescribed rules, the proper officer could resort to best judgment valuation, and a 15 per cent loading was not arbitrary. The demand for duty found payable on final assessment was also held not to be governed by Section 28 limitation, since it was not a case of short-levied, non-levied, or erroneously refunded duty. The customs orders were sustained and the writ petition rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the customs authorities were bound to accept the clarification obtained from the auditors and the order acknowledgments produced by the petitioners in support of the declared invoice value; (ii) whether loading the invoice value by 15 per cent was arbitrary in the circumstances; (iii) whether the demand notice for the duty found payable on final assessment was barred by limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (i): Whether the customs authorities were bound to accept the clarification obtained from the auditors and the order acknowledgments produced by the petitioners in support of the declared invoice value.

Analysis: The original auditor's certificate stated that no marginal profit had been charged, and the petitioners were called upon to produce evidence to show that the invoice price included such profit. No satisfactory evidence was produced before the assessing authority. The later clarification was obtained only after the adverse order had been passed, did not clearly relate to the earlier certificate, and appeared to be an afterthought. The order acknowledgments were also insufficient to establish that the invoice price included the requisite profit margin.

Conclusion: The authorities were justified in ignoring the later clarification and the order acknowledgments, and this contention fails against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether loading the invoice value by 15 per cent was arbitrary in the circumstances.

Analysis: Under the customs valuation scheme, valuation had to be determined on the basis of ascertainable evidence, and where the importer failed to produce material enabling valuation under the prescribed rules, the proper officer was entitled to resort to best judgment valuation. The petitioners did not furnish evidence despite being specifically called upon to do so, and therefore the officer was left with no option but to estimate the value on a reasonable basis.

Conclusion: The loading of invoice value by 15 per cent was not arbitrary and the challenge fails against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the demand notice for the duty found payable on final assessment was barred by limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The demand was not for duty not levied, short-levied, or erroneously refunded, but for recovery of duty found payable on final assessment. Section 28 was held inapplicable to such a demand, and the period of limitation relied on by the petitioners did not govern the recovery of duty determined on final assessment.

Conclusion: The demand notice was not barred by limitation and this contention fails against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected, the customs orders were sustained, and the respondents were entitled to recover the duty demanded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an importer fails to produce evidence necessary for valuation, the customs may determine value on a best judgment basis; and a demand for duty found payable on final assessment is not governed by the limitation applicable to short-levied or non-levied duty under Section 28.

---