Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2005 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (8) TMI 242 - AT - CustomsValuation (Customs) - Transaction Value of Imported goods - Import Price per unit - Contemporaneous import of comparable goods imported from China from traders in U.A.E - Evidence - HELD THAT:- The law provides for six different methods of valuation for the simple reason that the transaction value method may not be proper in all cases and the Customs authorities cannot be forced to accept the declared value in every case notwithstanding how ridiculously low these are. It may not also be possible in every doubtful case for the customs officers to establish payments made over and above the invoice price without information from the originating and intermediate countries which may not always be forthcoming. When the extra payments can be established, the transaction value method itself can be used, otherwise one of the other methods can be used. Therefore, the precedent decisions of the Tribunal cited by the learned SDR approving valuation on the basis of comparable value of contemporaneous imports are sound and the same fully support the basis of valuation adopted in this case. Moreover, the different methods of valuation, whether based on transaction value, or comparable value (of identical/similar goods), or deductive value based on resale price, or computed value based on cost and profit etc. are designed to arrive at an equitable customs value for the purpose of charging customs duty. The importers cannot have a grievance so long as one of these methods is fairly used, unless he is trying to secure a grossly undue duty advantage as in this case by declaring a value which is 25-30% of the value declared by competing importers importing similar goods. Equity considerations justify levy of duty to the same extent on similar goods. As regards the Advisory Opinion 2.1 of the Technical Committee on Customs Valuation cited by the learned advocate for the appellants, we note that the citation is out of context as in this case Article 1 (Rule 4) method of valuation has been discarded. In any case, the said Opinion recognizes power of the Customs authorities to satisfy themselves as to the truth and accuracy of any declaration made by the importers under Article 17 of the Agreement on Customs Valuation [Rule 10(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988]. The opinion merely says that it is permissible to have different transaction values of comparable goods under the Transaction Value method. As seen in this case also, the comparable goods were found to have been imported at different prices in a price range of US $ 1860 to $ 1950 PMT. However, the said Advisory Opinion cannot be taken to support a ridiculously low price of US $ 500 PMT. We also note that the Advisory Opinion given by the Technical Committee on Customs Valuation does not bind any country nor it has the same status as of the Decisions of the WTO Committee on Customs Valuation. The Advisory Opinions have no legal force and are not acceptable on the face of contrary decisions rendered by the Tribunal and the courts in India. Thus, we are of the opinion that the valuation approved by the lower Appellate Authority after taking into consideration all submissions made by the appellants in his detailed order is proper and the same does not require any interference. Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals.
|