1990 (10) TMI 175 - AT - Customs

Tribunal rules certificates not forged, but appellants lack evidence, so transaction value used for assessable value.

SANJAY CHANDIRAM Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

SANJAY CHANDIRAM Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS - 1991 (52) E.L.T. 413 (Tribunal) Issues Involved:1. Whether the certificates of origin No. 128/89, 142/89, 151/89, and 152/89 issued by the Korean Foreign Commodity Inspection Committee are forged.2. If not, whether the certificates of origin can be relied upon.3. If the certificates of origin cannot be relied upon, what should be the assessable value of the goodsRs.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the certificates of origin No. 128/89, 142/89, 151/89, and 152/89 issued by the Korean Foreign Commodity Inspection Committee are forged:The Department contended that the certificates of origin were forged, supported by a letter dated 19-12-1989 and endorsements on the certificates stating 'Seen. Found to be incorrect and forged.' Additionally, a letter dated 20-2-1990 from the Commercial Section, Embassy of DPR Korea, stated that the letter dated 9-2-1990 confirming the certificates was invalid as it was issued by an unauthorized person. However, the Tribunal found that the Department failed to provide clear evidence that the certificates were forged. The letter dated 19-12-1989 was not addressed to the Department, and there was no authentication on the endorsements. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the Department did not prove the certificates were forged.2. If not, whether the certificates of origin can be relied upon:The appellants relied on a letter dated 9-2-1990 from the Commercial Section, Embassy of DPR Korea, confirming the certificates' authenticity. However, this letter was later invalidated by the Embassy, stating it was issued by an unauthorized person. The Tribunal found that the appellants did not provide convincing evidence to prove the certificates' genuineness, such as proof that the Korean Foreign Commodity Inspection Committee was the competent authority or evidence of the export process from DPR Korea to Singapore. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the certificates of origin could not be accepted as genuine.3. If the certificates of origin cannot be relied upon, what should be the assessable value of the goods:Since the certificates of origin were not genuine, the country of origin could not be determined. The Collector had enhanced the declared value based on the lowest price of similar goods from South Korea. However, the Tribunal found no evidence that the goods were comparable in quality to those from South Korea. The Tribunal referred to Section 14 of the Customs Act, which provides for valuation based on the transaction value, i.e., the price actually paid or payable. In the absence of evidence of contemporary imports at higher rates or clandestine payments, the transaction value should be accepted. The Tribunal concluded that the value of the goods should be determined by adopting the transaction value under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the Collector's order, determining that the transaction value should be accepted as the assessable value of the goods.