Court sets aside Customs valuation, emphasizes certified sale price over established practice.

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the earlier order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and providing relief to the appellant. The Court emphasized that the car should be assessed at the sale price certified by the manufacturer, rejecting the Customs Authorities' valuation based on an "established practice" and list prices from external sources. The judgment highlighted that goods should be valued based on their sale price (transaction value) when a certified sale price is available, and not from various publications or list prices not specifying sales to the relevant country.

---

---

Issues: Assessment of customs duty based on the value of imported car, rejection of manufacturer-certified price, reliance on established practice for valuation.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported a Mitsubishi Pajero car and claimed assessment based on the price of 1800000 yen FOB Japan, supported by a certificate from the manufacturer. Customs authorities, however, assessed the car at a higher value of yen 3408000, leading to a dispute. The appellant's plea to accept the certified price was rejected, and an Order-in-Original confirmed assessment at the enhanced value, citing "established practice" as the basis. The Commissioner (Appeals) also dismissed the appeal, stating that the manufacturer's price certificate was not acceptable for valuation purposes. The appellant challenged this order, arguing that the car should be assessed at the sale price certified by the manufacturer.

2. The appellant contended that the valuation by Customs Authorities was contrary to law as goods should be valued based on their sale price (transaction value) and not from various publications. Reference was made to a Calcutta High Court decision emphasizing that valuation should not be based on prices from external sources when a certified sale price is available. The Court rejected the notion of an "established practice" overriding statutory provisions. The Departmental Representative highlighted that the Customs Authorities had obtained a price list from the manufacturer, which was not shared with the importer during adjudication. The substitution of list price for sale price was deemed unjustified, especially as the list price did not specify sales to India. The decision emphasized that sales need not occur at list prices and that the sale price, certified on an FOB basis, should have been accepted for valuation. The judgment allowed the appeal, setting aside the earlier order and providing relief to the appellant.

---