Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 448 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - undervaluation - misdeclaration - case of the department is that the price indicated in the BOE is the FOB price and not CIF price - It was also alleged that goods were declared as non-woven fabric (stock lot) whereas the description in the Bill of Lading set to have been recovered from the container, the description was woven fabric (stock lot) - scope of SCN. Held that:- The Department has charged the respondent- importer alleging mis-declaration regarding the price. There is no allegation of mis-declaration in the context of the description of the goods. In the present case, the allegation is of under-invoicing. The charge of under-invoicing has to be supported by evidence of prices of contemporaneous imports of like goods. It is for the Department to prove that the apparent is not the real. The transaction value under Rule 4 must be the price paid or payable on such goods at the time and place of importation in the course of international trade. Section 14 is the deeming provision. It talks of deemed value. The value is deemed to be the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale, for delivery at the time and place of importation in the course of international trade where the seller and the buyer have no interest in the business of each other and the price is the sole consideration for the sale or for offer for sale. Therefore, what has to be seen by the Department is the value or cost of the imported goods at the time of importation, i.e., at the time when the goods reach the customs barrier. Therefore, the invoice price is not sacrosanct. However, before rejecting the invoice price the Department has to give cogent reasons for such rejection. This is because the invoice price forms the basis of the transaction value. Therefore, before rejecting the transaction value as incorrect or unacceptable, the Department has to find out whether there are any imports of identical goods or similar goods at a higher price at around the same time. In the absence of any special circumstances indicated in Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, the price paid or payable should be taken as transactional value. The charges under invoices have to be supported by evidences of prices of contemporaneous of imports like goods. Invoice price, though, not sacrosanct, the Department has to give cogent reasons before rejecting the invoice price. The Department has to find out whether there are any imports of identical goods or similar goods at a higher price around of same time unless the evidence is gathered in that regard. The question of rejecting the value does not arise. The invoice price has to be accepted in such circumstances if the charge under valuation cannot be supporter either by evidence or information about comparable imports, the benefit of doubt must go to the importer. In the instant case, the Commissioner on the one hand held that there is no mis-declaration of description on the part of the appellants. He has not adduced any evidence of payment by the appellants over and above the invoice price. No proof of payment either to the foreign suppliers or to the steamer agents for transportation. Differential duty payable has been arrived only on the basis of certain data called for from the steamer agent. The learned Commissioner has not only traversed beyond the SCN but also has not given due consideration to the contemporaneous imports, if any, of identical or similar goods. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|