Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Ace Designers Ltd vs Bangalore-Cus on 1 June, 2023
C/1085/2010
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1
Appeal(s) Involved:
Customs Appeal No.1085 of 2010
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.79/2010 dated
31.3.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs
(Appeals), Bangalore.)
M/s. Ace Designers Ltd
Plot No.7 & 8, II Phase Appellant(s)
Peenya Industrial Area
Bangalore - 560 058.
Versus
Commissioner of Customs
Bangalore Commissionerate
Central Revenue Buildings, Respondent(s)
Queens Road, Bangalore - 560 001.
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri B. N. Gururaj, Advocate Shri K. A. Jathin, Dy. Com. (AR) For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Final Order No. 20717 / 2023 Date of Hearing: 01.06.2023 Date of Decision: 01.06.2023 Per : R. BHAGYA DEVI This appeal is filed by the appellant against Order-in- Appeal No.79/2010 dated 31.3.2010.
2. The appellant is a manufacturer of machine tools. During the international exhibition of machine tools, the appellant Page 1 of 5 C/1085/2010 purchased an industrial robot. This product was brought to India by the foreign company participating in the exhibition through ATA Carnet by declaring the value of the product as EU 55900. The appellant after negotiation, fixed the price at EU 30000 and accordingly, filed a Bill of Entry No.000025 dated 16.7.2009. Since the Revenue did not accept the value, the appellant paid the duty under protest and cleared the goods. The Commissioner (A) has rejected this negotiated value on the ground that the appellant had not furnished any justifiable reason for reduction of the value from the value declared in the ATA Carnet for arriving at the negotiated transaction value as claimed by them. He also stated that no document showing the actual value paid to the supplier was also produced. In the absence of any supported documents, reasons for reduction in the negotiated value were rejected.
3. Shri B. N. Gururaj, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that the ATA Carnet allows movement of goods without payment of duty for the purpose other than sale. The value declared in the ATA Carnet cannot represent the transaction value as defined under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Department also has not looked into any contemporaneous import. The transaction value shown under the ATA Carnet was meant only for the sake of the exhibition. The negotiated price of the product cannot be doubted unless any suspicious or illegality of the negotiated price is shown. The learned counsel has also relied on the Tribunal's judgment rendered in the case of Galaxy Fun world Pvt Ltd vs. Page 2 of 5 C/1085/2010 Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai: 2006 (206) ELT 890 (Tri.-Mum.).
4. Heard learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue, who reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.
5. The fact that the industrial robot was imported for exhibition purpose under ATA Carnet vide No.DE 001/09/LDK dated 2.1.2009 is not disputed and the appellant had purchased the above product from the exhibited product is also not under dispute. As seen from the list price, the price of the product is shown as EU 55900. The sale invoice No.290334 dated 23.6.2009 issued by the supplier to the appellant clearly shows the value as EU 30000. The purchase order also mentions the value as EU 30000. The appellant also vide letter dated 14.7.2009 submitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs that M/s. Saielo had exported 01 No. ROBOT Type SRZ 200/DL- 2P Sl. No.07066876 for Exhibition under ATA Carnet vide ATA Carnet No.DE 001/09/LDK dt.05.01.2009. The actual value declared by the Exhibitor in ATA Carnet is EUR 55900.00. It is also submitted that since the ATA Carnet was to be expired, they were willing to pay the duty under protest on the ATA Carnet value.
6. We find that the goods imported are under ATA Carnet are allowed duty-free in terms of Notification No.157/1990-Cus. dated 28.3.1990. As seen from the ATA Carnet documents, it is clearly shown that the goods are meant for exhibition at IMTEX 2009 India and the value shown therein is EUR 55900 was Page 3 of 5 C/1085/2010 meant for the purpose of bringing the goods into India for the exhibition and these goods as per the ATA Carnet Regulations are to be exported within six months. During the relevant time, the sale of such goods was permitted on payment of Customs duty with prior approval from Government of India. The question here arises is whether the price adopted by the Customs which is commercial value as per the ATA Carnet form meant for exhibition can be taken as the transaction value. As per Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for delivery at the time and place of importation is to be considered. Section 14(1)(iii) clearly mentions that:
Section 14 Valuation of Goods (1)(iii) the manner of acceptance or rejection of value declared by the importer or exporter, as the case may be, where the proper officer has reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of such value, and determination of value for the purposes of this section:
Hence, if any value has to be rejected, the Proper Officer has to produce necessary documents or evidence to reject the value. In the instant case, the Invoice dated 23.06.2009 issued by M/s. Saielo to M/s. Ace Designers Ltd is on record to show that the item has been purchased for EUR 30000. There is also a purchase order No.4500000176 dated 12.06.2009 on record, which also shows the value as EUR 30000.
7. In the case of CCE vs. Galaxy Entertainment (I) Pvt Ltd: 2007 (214) E.L.T 14 (S.C), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when there was a negotiated price and this negotiated Page 4 of 5 C/1085/2010 price had to be accepted as the value of the imported item, if the customs do not find any cogent reasons for rejecting the same. 7.1 In the case of CCE vs. Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt Ltd: 2019 (365) ELT 3 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that as per Section 14(1), the value of any goods chargeable to ad valorem duty is deemed to be the price as referred to in that provision. Therefore, normally, the Assessing Officer is supposed to act on the basis of price which is actually paid and treat the same as assessable value/transaction value of the goods. As per the provisions, the transaction value can be discarded in case it is found that there are any imports of identical goods or similar goods at a higher price during the relevant period. However, unless reasons supported by material evidences are placed on record, the declared price cannot be rejected.
8. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Order dictated and pronounced in Open Court.) (D.M. MISRA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (R. BHAGYA DEVI) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) rv Page 5 of 5