2019 (8) TMI 224 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - Automotive Consumables - rejection of transaction value - main contentions of the Appellants are that the Appellant was not party to the market enquiry; copy of the report was not provided by him and that the Commissioner has not proceeded sequentially in terms of Customs Valuation Rules - HELD THAT - The Commissioner has heavily relied on the market enquiry which was not done in the presence of the either the Appellants or their representative. The copy of the market enquiry report was not given to the Appellants. We find that for this reasons the Order in Original suffers from a serious lacuna. The Appellants contended that the Learned Commissioner has not discharged the burden of proof of valuation - We find that Commissioner has brushed aside the contemporaneous value of some items provided by the Appellants. The Commissioner s contention was that such goods were seized and were subjected to adjudication and therefore he was not considering those values. We find that the Learned Commissioner has not analysed the values therein taken in such adjudication of identical / similar goods. We find that for that reasons also the adjudication order suffers from infirmity. The Ld. Commissioner could have gone in to the valuation of contemporaneous imports from NIDB or any other source or she could have examined the values arrived at in such bills of entry provided by the appellants. This was all the more important as the imports were at about the same time and were of similar products - Learned Commissioner could have come to a conclusion after analysing any other evidence in support of market enquiry before arriving at a conclusion. We do not find any mention of the efforts made by Commissioner to have a look at the contemporaneous imports and as to why she was resorting to Rule 7A of CVR. The values of disputed items were arrived at without following the CVR and without giving any cogent reasons for arriving at such a value. We are of the opinion that such a valuation has neither statutory backing nor legal acceptability - the Ld. Commissioner has erred in rejecting the transaction value and in fixing the value of the impugned goods. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged under-valuation of imported goods.
2. Procedure and validity of market enquiry.
3. Rejection of transaction value and application of Customs Valuation Rules.
4. Non-provision of market enquiry report to the appellants.
5. Reliance on export price and Proforma Invoice for valuation.
6. Burden of proof and rejection of contemporaneous import values.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Under-Valuation of Imported Goods:
The case involves the interception of imported automotive consumables by the Central Intelligence Unit of New Customs House, Mumbai, which were alleged to be under-valued. The goods were detained, and a Show Cause Notice was issued, leading to a revaluation and confirmation of duty, penalty, and redemption fine based on a market survey.

2. Procedure and Validity of Market Enquiry:
The appellants contended that the market enquiry was conducted without their involvement, and the report was not provided to them. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner heavily relied on this market enquiry, which was not valid evidence as it lacked the presence and cooperation of the appellants. The Tribunal cited the case of Saccha Souda Pedhi, emphasizing that market enquiry without the importer’s involvement loses its evidentiary value.

3. Rejection of Transaction Value and Application of Customs Valuation Rules:
The appellants argued that the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, were not followed sequentially. The Commissioner should have proceeded through Rules 4, 5, 6, and 7 before resorting to Rule 7A. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the Commissioner did not provide reasons for not following the sequential rules and improperly relied on Rule 7A.

4. Non-Provision of Market Enquiry Report to the Appellants:
The Tribunal found that the market enquiry report was not provided to the appellants, which was a serious procedural lapse. This omission rendered the Order in Original flawed, as per the Tribunal’s observation in Saccha Souda Pedhi.

5. Reliance on Export Price and Proforma Invoice for Valuation:
The Commissioner’s reliance on the export price of a locally manufactured product and a Proforma Invoice for determining the value of imported goods was deemed inappropriate. The Tribunal highlighted that such methods are against established principles of valuation and lack legal acceptability.

6. Burden of Proof and Rejection of Contemporaneous Import Values:
The appellants provided evidence of contemporaneous imports with similar values, which the Commissioner rejected without proper analysis. The Tribunal stated that the Commissioner failed to discharge the burden of proof for valuation and did not consider or examine the contemporaneous import values. The Tribunal referenced cases like Ramdev Traders and Golden Agro Corporation, which underscore the necessity of following proper valuation rules and considering contemporaneous import data.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner erred in rejecting the transaction value and fixing the value of the impugned goods. The procedural lapses, non-involvement of the appellants in the market enquiry, and improper application of Customs Valuation Rules rendered the Order in Original unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in toto.

← Previous Next →