Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1053 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - Opal glassware - evidence of contemporaneous import dismissed on the ground that the document purportedly showing the value of contemporaneous import being unauthenticated & unsigned - HELD THAT:- While remanding the matter this Tribunal has not directed the Adjudication Authority to consider any specific ground but directed to reconsider the issue afresh. In such situation there is no infirmity in reopening the entire issue. However, the Adjudication Authority ought to have considered the findings given by this Tribunal regarding the sustainability of the finding regarding statement recorded from the Managing partner. Moreover in spite of furnishing details like port of import, Bill of Entry number, date, country of origin, imported items etc. for the relevant period and even after specific directions to consider the evidence produced by the appellant regarding contemporaneous import by this Tribunal, no efforts were made by the Adjudication Authority to call for the records available in the data bank regarding said imports to verify the facts after sharing such information with appellant before de-novo adjudication. As regard the findings related to overseas remittance, the Adjudication Authority has stated that the importer did not produce statement covering the entire period of import. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of EICHER TRACTORS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI [2000 (11) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT] held that the transaction value cannot be rejected unless the imports attract any of the exceptions noted in Rule 3(2) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Revenue has not been able to establish that imported goods attracts exception noted in Rule 3(2) of Valuation Rules. Regarding trade discounts claimed by the appellant, this Tribunal in M/S. OZURT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [2015 (11) TMI 1090 - CESTAT BANGALORE] considered the claimed discount at the range of 87% to 97% from the supplier’s price list and following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in MIRAH EXPORTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [1998 (2) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT] and in METAL BOX INDIA LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS [1995 (1) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT] held that, it is not unusual for foreign supplier to give a higher discount when imports are in much larger quantity and in such cases, it cannot be said that there has been undervaluation in the invoice. There has not been sufficient evidence with the Department to reject the transaction value - the appeals are allowed, penalty imposed on appellants are set aside with consequential relief if any.
|