2018 (4) TMI 28 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - primary aluminium ingots - DEEC Scheme - rejection of declared value - princples of Natural Justice - Held that - There is no evidence of the importer having been given an opportunity to rebut the contents of the bills of entry that were the purported foundation of the re-assessment by the original authority. In the absence of such opportunity, the rejection of declared value is an incomplete exercise that does not have the sanction of law - The original authority has undertaken the exercise of re-assessment to provide for recovery in the contingency of breach of the conditions of import. In the absence of ascertainment of such contingency, the re-assessment remains an academic exercise. There are no reason to uphold the contention of Revenue that the impugned order is not legal and proper - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Dispute regarding import of 'primary aluminium ingots' under DEEC scheme and exemption under notification no.93/2004-Cus; Rejection of declared value based on London Metal Exchange Bulletin; Sequential application of Customs Valuation Rules; Compliance with rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules; Justification for declared value rejection; Burden of proof on proper officer; Opportunity for importer to rebut re-assessment; Impact of value enhancement on import quantity; CIF terms in advance license; Motive for undervaluation.

Analysis:

1. The dispute in these appeals revolves around the import of 'primary aluminium ingots' by M/s Apar Industries Limited under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC) scheme, claiming exemption under notification no.93/2004-Cus. The rejection of the declared value was based on discrepancies with the values in the London Metal Exchange Bulletin, resulting in a significant duty implication. The original authority's findings were set aside by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), leading to the present appeals by Revenue.

2. The grounds of appeal reiterated the rejection of declared value under rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, citing discrepancies with the London Metal Exchange Bulletin and National Import Data Base. The sequential application of the Rules was emphasized, alleging disregard by the first appellate authority.

3. The Revenue's grievance was that the first appellate authority disregarded the original authority's detailed findings on the importer's justifications for the declared value. The original authority had complied with rule 12 and conducted inquiries into the transaction value, contractual obligations, and procurement volume. However, the justifications provided were deemed unacceptable due to procedural non-compliance and lack of credibility.

4. The impugned order, while lacking detailed discussion on the original authority's justifications, highlighted the absence of justification for assessable value computation. It referenced the Supreme Court decisions in Eicher Tractors Ltd and Varsha Plastics Pvt Ltd regarding burden of proof on the proper officer.

5. The absence of an opportunity for the importer to rebut the bills of entry forming the basis of re-assessment rendered the rejection of declared value incomplete and legally unsanctioned. The original authority's failure to provide this opportunity was not rectified in the grounds of appeal.

6. The importer's operation under a scheme with quantitative and value restrictions on imports for manufacturing export goods was noted. An enhancement in value would impact import quantity, and the re-assessment lacked contingency ascertainment for breach of import conditions. The importer's supply agreements and lack of motive for undervaluation were considered.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no legal basis to support Revenue's contention that the impugned order was improper, leading to the dismissal of Revenue's appeals.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues raised in the judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and conclusions reached by the Tribunal.