Over-valuation of imported goods in power project imports: challenge to intermediary invoices and revaluation rejected, appeal dismissed

Dispute concerns alleged over-valuation of imports for power projects and permissibility of intermediary invoicing; tribunal found absence of admissible evidence from foreign banks and no challenge to authorization for signatory, so relationship between procurer and intermediary was not established, resulting in rejection of reliance on intermediary payment flows. Contractual documents constituted an EPC turnkey contract with lump-sum project pricing, and imports fell under project import registration (PIR) permitting assessment of project imports as a whole; declared transaction value was accepted under the valuation rules and redetermination under comparative value provisions was inappropriate. Incomplete investigation and inadmissible documents precluded revaluation and confiscation, appeal dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Allegation of over-valuation of imported goods by APML and APRL.
2. Relationship between APML/APRL and EIF.
3. Validity of the International Competitive Bidding (ICB) process.
4. Admissibility of documents obtained from banks as evidence.
5. Nature of the contracts (EPC vs. supply contracts).
6. Assessment under Project Import Regulations (PIR).
7. Valuation of imported goods under Customs Valuation Rules.
8. Confiscation of goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegation of Over-valuation of Imported Goods by APML and APRL:
The department alleged that APML and APRL over-valued goods imported for setting up power projects to siphon off foreign exchange. The adjudicating authority found that the contracts were awarded through a legitimate International Competitive Bidding (ICB) process and were EPC contracts, encompassing a wide scope of work beyond mere supply of goods. The project cost per MW was found to be within the benchmark set by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), and comparable to other similar projects. Thus, the allegation of over-valuation was not substantiated.

2. Relationship Between APML/APRL and EIF:
The adjudicating authority examined whether APML/APRL and EIF were related parties under Rule 2(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. It was found that APML and EIF were not related at the time of signing the contract. Although APRL and EIF were related when the contract was signed, the relationship did not influence the price due to the ICB process. The adjudicating authority concluded that the relationship did not affect the transaction value.

3. Validity of the International Competitive Bidding (ICB) Process:
The ICB process followed by APML and APRL was found to be legitimate and transparent. The contracts were awarded to the lowest bidder, EIF, after a thorough evaluation. The department's claim that the ICB process was a sham was not supported by evidence. The adjudicating authority noted that the project cost was comparable to other similar projects and within the benchmark set by CERC.

4. Admissibility of Documents Obtained from Banks as Evidence:
The documents obtained from banks were found to be inadmissible as evidence. The adjudicating authority noted that the documents did not comply with the requirements of Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, which mandates a certificate identifying the document and describing the manner of production. Additionally, the documents were not authenticated or signed, making them unreliable.

5. Nature of the Contracts (EPC vs. Supply Contracts):
The contracts between APML/APRL and EIF were found to be EPC contracts, covering design, engineering, manufacturing, procurement, supply, transportation, installation, testing, commissioning, and performance guarantee tests. The adjudicating authority rejected the department's claim that the contracts were merely supply contracts. The contracts were registered under the Project Import Regulations (PIR) and assessed as a whole.

6. Assessment Under Project Import Regulations (PIR):
The adjudicating authority concluded that the entire contract registered under PIR should be assessed as a whole, not individual consignments. The assessment was based on the contract's overall value, and the department's attempt to assess individual consignments was found to be impermissible and unjustified.

7. Valuation of Imported Goods Under Customs Valuation Rules:
The adjudicating authority found no evidence to doubt the transaction value declared by APML/APRL. The declared value was accepted under Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules read with Section 14 of the Customs Act. The department's attempt to redetermine the value under Rules 4 and 9 was rejected, as the contracts were EPC contracts, and the terms and conditions were more stringent than those between EIF and the Original Equipment Manufacturers.

8. Confiscation of Goods Under Section 111 of the Customs Act:
The adjudicating authority found no basis for confiscation under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, as there was no short levy of duty or assertion that the goods were prohibited. The decision in Knowledge Infrastructure Systems Private Limited vs. Additional Director General, D.R.I., which held that goods cannot be confiscated without a nexus to duty collection or enforcement of prohibitions, was applied.

Conclusion:
The adjudicating authority's order dropping the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice was upheld. The appeal was dismissed, and the findings of the adjudicating authority were affirmed.

---