Judgment:
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 89/2005 dated 19.10.2005 by which the Commissioner (A) has confirmed Order-in-Original No.37/2005 dated 30.9.2005 confirming demands for the allegation of undervaluation and mis-declaration of goods.
2. The brief facts are that the appellants filed Bill of Entry No.105022 dated 29.7.2005 for home consumption for clearance of assorted furniture and sanitary wares. The department found that the value of goods declared to be very low and hence, they were asked to explain.
The importer vide their letter dated 2.8.2005 submitted that their supplier had done clerical error in the Invoice No. 050009 dated 18.7.2005 which shows the total value as HKD 8815/- of Lucky World Trading Co., China and that they had forgotten to add the details in column 'total' against each item in the invoice which was realized latter. Hence, they field a corrected invoice. The revenue referred the matter to the Chartered Engineer. On the basis of the local market, the Chartered Engineer held that the declared value to be very low.
Therefore, the revenue has revised the value of the goods and has imposed penalty which is under challenge.
3. The learned Counsel submits that there is no evidence of contemporaneous import for revising the value. The Chartered Engineer cannot take the value of local market for the purpose of revising the value. Therefore, the revision of value is not as per law and the same is required to be set aside. He relied on the Apex Court ruling rendered in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai and (ii) Diamond Minks Blanket Ltd. v. NCH, IGI Airport, New Delhi (iv) Andhra Sugars Ltd. v. CC, Visakhapatnam 2005 (102) ECC 103 (Tri.)Airhant Electronics v. CC, Bangalore 2007 (79) RLT 726 (CESTAT-Bang.) 5. On a careful consideration, it is seen that there was an error in the invoice. The same was noticed and the fresh corrected invoice was filed. Revenue proceeded to revise the value on the basis of the value submitted by the Chartered Engineer. The Chartered Engineer has valued the goods in terms of the prevailing local market. There is no evidence of contemporaneous import of the said goods from the same country and therefore, this evidence of Chartered Engineer cannot be accepted as value of contemporaneous imports. The law is well laid down with regard to the assessments of goods under Section 14 of the Customs Act and Valuation Rules and the same has been analysed by the Apex Court in Eicher Tractors Ltd. (supra). The conditions for revision of transaction value as laid down in the said citation have not been followed in the matter. All the citations referred to by the learned Counsel clearly apply to the facts of the case. The enhancement of the transaction value and imposition of penalty is not as per law.
Therefore, in the light of the above cited judgments the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing)