2004 (8) TMI 140 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Rules: No Extended Limitation Without Evidence of Collusion; Requires Authentic Docs for Value Assessment.

TAITO WATCH MANUFACTURING INDS. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS., JAIPUR

TAITO WATCH MANUFACTURING INDS. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS., JAIPUR - 2004 (173) E.L.T. 17 (Tri. - Del.) Issues involved: The judgment involves the issue of enhancement of the value of goods imported by the Appellants based on discrepancies between the declared value in invoices and the Export Declaration obtained from the foreign supplier.Details of the Judgment:1. The Appellants imported goods based on invoices from a foreign supplier, with some goods being assessed to duty and others being seized. Subsequently, show cause notices were issued alleging undervaluation. The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand, penalties, and confiscation of goods, citing discrepancies between declared values and Export Declaration. The Appellants argued that without collusion with the supplier, the extended period of limitation for demanding duty cannot be invoked. They relied on legal precedents mandating acceptance of invoice value unless specific circumstances exist to reject it.2. The Appellants contended that the Export Declaration cannot be the basis for enhancing the assessable value due to lack of clarity and authenticity in the document. They argued that without evidence of collusion or special circumstances, the declared transaction value should be accepted. The Revenue, however, claimed that discrepancies in the Export Declaration indicated an intent to evade duty.3. The Tribunal considered both arguments and found that without evidence of collusion between the Appellants and the foreign suppliers, the extended period of limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act cannot be invoked. As a result, the Appeals by two of the Appellants were allowed. Regarding a specific Bill of Entry, the Tribunal noted the lack of the original Export Declaration and emphasized the need for genuine documents to enhance the assessable value.4. Citing previous decisions, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of authentic documents in determining assessable value. It emphasized that photocopies without proper authentication cannot be the sole basis for rejecting transaction value. The Tribunal remanded the matter for re-determination of assessable value in a specific case where the original Export Declaration was not presented.5. In conclusion, all the Appeals were disposed of based on the findings related to the authenticity of documents and the absence of collusion between the importers and foreign suppliers. The Tribunal emphasized the need for clear and genuine evidence in determining the assessable value of imported goods.