Onus to prove under-valuation is on revenue but once revenue discharges burden of proof by producing evidence of contemporaneous imports at higher price, onus shifts to importer to establish that price indicated in invoice relied upon by him is correct – SC

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Aggarwal Industries Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)– A mere suspicion upon the correctness of the invoice produced by an importer is not sufficient to reject it as evidence of the value of imported goods. The doubt held by the officer concerned has to be based on some material evidence and is not to be formed on a mere suspicion or speculation. We may hasten to add that although strict rules of evidence do not apply to adjudication proceedings under the Act, yet the Adjudicating Authority has to examine the probative value of the documents on which reliance is sought to be placed by the revenue. It is well settled that the onus to prove undervaluation is on the revenue but once the revenue discharges the burden of proof by producing evidence of contemporaneous imports at a higher price, the onus shifts to the importer to establish that the price indicated in the invoice relied upon by him is correct.

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, VISHAKHAPATNAM VS  M/S AGGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.   

 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2521 OF 2006

WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1699 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2129 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2114 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2518 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2519 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2520 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2522 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2523 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2853 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3197 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3487 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3564 OF 2006
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5006 OF  2007

JUDGMENT