2009 (6) TMI 356 - AT - Customs

Import dispute resolved in favor of appellant using transaction value evidence. Commissioner's decision upheld, highlighting importance of evidence in import cases.

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA Versus BLOOM DÉCOR LTD.

The appeal involved a dispute over the declared value of imported Phenol. The appellant successfully rebutted doubts regarding the transaction value by ... Enhancement of value - Commissioner (Appeals) has extended benefit to the appellants by taking note of the fact that they have entered into contract with the supplier of the goods and such contract was based on international prices of the commodity. There being no evidence of rejection of the transaction value, ratio of the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Eicher Tractors v. CCE, Pune would apply - In such circumstances, the charge of the department that the price was not competitive or that there was some abnormal discount given only to the appellant is not sustainable. - We do not find any justification to interfere in the above findings of Commissioner (Appeals), which is based upon the appreciation of the evidences as also the precedent decisions of Tribunal. - Appeal filed by the Revenue is, accordingly, rejected. Issues:Dispute over the declared value of imported Phenol, Application of the transaction value for assessment under Section 14 of the Act.Issue 1: Dispute over the declared value of imported PhenolThe appeal pertains to a dispute over the value of 94.758 MT of Phenol imported by the assessee under a Bill of Entry dated 30-1-04. The declared price by the appellant was USD 640 PMT, while the Revenue sought to enhance it to USD 710 PMT. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the contract entered into by the appellant with the supplier, based on international prices of the commodity, and noted the absence of evidence of rejection of the transaction value. Referring to the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractors v. CCE, Pune, it was observed that the appellant had successfully rebutted the doubt regarding the truthfulness of the Transaction Value by producing ample evidence. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the enhancement of value based on the price of the goods on 19-1-04 could not be sustained for a contract of sale entered in December, especially when evidence showed an increase in the price of the commodity in the International Market during that period. Therefore, the Transaction Value was accepted for assessment under Section 14 of the Act.Issue 2: Application of the transaction value for assessment under Section 14 of the ActThe Commissioner (Appeals) extended benefit to the appellants based on the contract with the supplier, which was in line with international prices of the commodity. Citing various precedent decisions of the Tribunal, the Commissioner noted that the appellant had provided evidence to support the transaction value declared. The Commissioner's decision was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal, which found no justification to interfere in the findings based on the appreciation of evidence and precedent decisions. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, affirming the acceptance of the Transaction Value for assessment under Section 14 of the Act.This judgment highlights the importance of providing substantial evidence to support the declared transaction value in import disputes and emphasizes the significance of contracts based on international prices in determining the value of imported goods for assessment under relevant legal provisions.