2022 (2) TMI 679 - AT - Customs

Jurisdiction - proper officer to issue SCN - officer of DRI is proper officer to issue SCN or not - Valuation of imported goods - rejection of declared value - entire case in the show cause notice is built on the ground that the appellant had mis-declared the value of the imported plywood in the current and past consignments and the proposals for confiscation, penalty and demand of differential duty and interest emanate from them - HELD THAT - It is unnecessary to examine the merits of the case as the show cause notice itself was issued under Section 28 by an officer of DRI who is not the proper officer to issue the show cause notice in this case as per Cannon India followed by a catena of judgments some of which were cited above. Thus, if the show cause notice is without authority, regardless of the merits of the case, the order cannot be sustained. Even if we examine the merits of the case the outcome is irrelevant whether it is found in favour of Revenue or in favour of the appellant. The impugned order still needs to be set aside. Following ratio of Canon India, it is found that the impugned order cannot be sustained - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the show cause notice issued by DRI for demanding duty under Section 28.
2. Rejection of transaction value and re-determination of the value of imported goods.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of the show cause notice issued by DRI for demanding duty under Section 28
The appellant imported plywood which was examined by jurisdictional Customs officers following intelligence received by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). DRI issued a show cause notice proposing confiscation of goods, duty demand, and penalties based on undervaluation. However, it was argued that the show cause notice was issued without authority of law as per the Cannon India judgment, which held that DRI officers were not proper officers to issue such notices under Section 28. Various courts and tribunals, including the Supreme Court and High Courts, set aside demands where show cause notices were issued by DRI officers. The assessment of Bills of Entry was done by the officer of ICD, JRY Kanpur, who was the proper officer to issue the notice. The entire proceedings were deemed vitiated due to the invalid show cause notice.

Issue 2: Rejection of transaction value and re-determination of the value of imported goods
The appellant contested the rejection of the transaction value of the imported goods and its re-determination solely based on 'contemporaneous imports' without concrete evidence. The appellant argued that their transaction value was correct and not false, emphasizing that customs valuation should be based on transaction value. A similar case involving M/s Amar Delhi Ply Pvt. Ltd. saw the Tribunal setting aside the demand as the revenue failed to prove the transaction value was incorrect. The jurisdictional Allahabad High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that unless there is concrete evidence, the valuation should not be rejected. The burden of proof rested on the revenue, and in the absence of material suggesting perversity in the Tribunal's order, the appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order due to the invalid show cause notice issued by DRI officers and the lack of concrete evidence to reject the transaction value of the imported goods. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper authority in issuing show cause notices and the necessity of substantial evidence in challenging transaction values for customs valuation purposes.