Pranav B Prem

The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal, comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member), set aside anti-dumping duty (ADD) demands and penalties imposed on Surbhit Impex Pvt. Ltd. and others, holding that Customs authorities cannot reduce a higher declared transaction value merely to trigger anti-dumping duty liability. The dispute arose from imports of melamine by Surbhit Impex Pvt. Ltd. (SIPL) and B.M. Jain & Sons Pvt. Ltd. (BMJSPL), which later merged with SIPL. The adjudicating authority had confirmed ADD on the differential value, along with penalties, redemption fines, and personal penalties on directors and alleged collaborators.

Also Read: No Permanent Establishment In India, Booking.com’s ₹3,960 Cr Commission Not Taxable: ITAT

According to the record, the importers had brought in 38 consignments, many on a high-sea sale basis. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence initiated an investigation on the allegation that the importers had inflated the declared value of melamine to keep the landed price marginally below the reference price specified in Notification No. 10/2010-Cus., thereby avoiding liability to anti-dumping duty.

Relying on international price data, particularly figures published by ICIS, the department concluded that the international price of melamine had fallen significantly. On this basis, it rejected the declared transaction value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, re-determined the value at a lower figure, and demanded ADD on the differential amount.

Before the Tribunal, the appellants contended that the declared transaction value was higher than comparable international prices and that Rule 12 permits rejection of value only where there is suspicion of undervaluation, not overvaluation. They argued that high-sea sales are a legitimate commercial practice and that no evidence existed of any remittance or kickback indicating manipulation of value. They also challenged the admissibility of electronic evidence and statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, stating that such statements were retracted at the earliest opportunity.

The department, on the other hand, alleged that the importers had engaged in a deliberate scheme involving artificial inflation of CIF value through a dummy intermediary and fabricated documents, supported by electronic records and statements recorded during investigation.

After examining the material on record, the Tribunal found that although the department had attempted to establish overvaluation, there was no cogent evidence to prove that the prices were inflated to evade anti-dumping duty. It noted that apart from statements under Section 108—which were later retracted—there was no reliable evidence to substantiate the allegations.

The Tribunal emphasised that Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules only provides a mechanism to doubt or reject declared value where there are reasons to believe it does not represent the true transaction value, typically in cases of undervaluation. It observed that the rule does not empower authorities to reduce a higher declared value to a lower figure merely to impose anti-dumping duty.  The Bench categorically held that “such redetermination of lesser value against higher transaction value is impermissible under the rules,” and that the department’s approach was contrary to the valuation framework.

The Tribunal also addressed the reliance on electronic evidence, noting procedural deficiencies. It observed that the source, authorship, and authenticity of the digital data had not been established, and that statements relied upon were retracted. In the absence of proper verification and cross-examination, such material could not form the sole basis of adverse findings.

Further, the Tribunal explained that anti-dumping duty is a trade-remedial measure intended to protect domestic industry from injury caused by dumped imports. It is not a revenue-generating tool, and its imposition must follow the statutory framework under the Customs Tariff Act and the anti-dumping rules.  Referring to the principles under Article VII of GATT, the Tribunal observed that customs valuation must be based on the actual transaction value and not on arbitrary price ranges or journal-published figures when the real transaction value is available.

Also Read: No Interest Under Section 234C If Advance Tax Paid On Due Date Despite System Delay: ITAT

The Tribunal also noted that all Bills of Entry had been assessed after queries at the first-check stage, and duties had been accepted by the department on the declared value. In such circumstances, the invocation of the extended period was found to be unjustified.  Concluding that the order confirming ADD, interest, penalties, and redemption fines was unsustainable both in law and on facts, the Tribunal set aside the entire order-in-original and allowed all appeals with consequential relief.

Appearance

For Appellant: Ashwini Kumar, Advocate

For Respondent: Mahesh Yashwant Patil, Additional Commissioner

Cause Title: M/s. Surbhit Impex Pvt. Ltd.  Versus Commissioner of Customs

Case No: Customs Appeal No. 86623 of 2024

Coram: Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member)