2022 (6) TMI 177 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - Food Supplements - rejection of declared assessable value based on NIDB data - re-determination of value as per Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules - non-application of mind - it is claimed that the NIDB data does not establish that the contemporaneous imports were of similar goods - allegation of mis-declaration of value is supported by cogent evidence or not. The primary submission of the appellant is that the data derived from NIDB cannot prove that it has mis-declared the value and, therefore, the transaction value should not have been rejected in terms of Rule 12 of the Valuation Rules - HELD THAT - Once the transaction value is not rejected, the value cannot be re-determined as per the Valuation Rules. It is also the submission of the appellant that there is no evidence of additional consideration for sale and that it has paid for the goods only through banking channels. In the absence of any additional consideration for sale, the declared value must be accepted - the valuation has to be done sequentially as follows a) If a tariff value is fixed by the Board, it is the value (sub- section 2 of Section 14); b) If no tariff value is fixed by the Board, valuation is as per the transaction value, if necessary, with some additions (as per the first proviso to sub-section 1 of section 14 and as per Rule 10); c) If the transaction value is rejected as per Rule 12 by the proper officer, valuation has to be done as per the value of identical goods (Rule 4); d) If transaction value is rejected and there is no value of identical goods, then it must be as per the value of similar goods (Rule 5); e) If transaction value is rejected and there is no value of identical goods or similar goods, the value must be determined through Deductive method (Rule 7) f) If transaction value is rejected and there is no value of identical goods or similar goods and it is not possible to determine value following deductive method, then value must be determined through computation (Rule 8) g) If the importer so chooses, computational method may be adopted without examining the deductive method first (Rule 6). h) If the transaction value is rejected and there is no value of identical goods or similar goods and if it is also not possible to determine the value through deductive method or computational method, then value may be determined through the residual method by the officer following the above principles (Rule 9). When can the proper officer reject the transaction value? - HELD THAT - If the officer has reason to doubt the truth and accuracy of the transaction value, he can call for information including documents and evidence. If the information and evidence is presented and after examining it or if no information or evidence as called for is presented, if the proper office has reasonable belief then it shall be deemed that the value cannot be determined as per Rule 3 (i.e., based on transaction value with additions, if necessary). While the officer can, in the first place call for information and evidence if he has reason to doubt, at the second stage, he should have not just some reason to doubt but a reasonable doubt. If he has such reasonable doubt, then the transaction value can be rejected. Rejection under Rule 12 requires firstly that the proper officer has some reason to doubt the transaction value and after calling for additional information and investigation should have a reasonable doubt about the transaction value. Once the officer has a reasonable doubt then it shall be presumed that valuation cannot be done as per the transaction value. In this particular case, the appellant has imported goods from a trader based in Dubai and the imported goods were food supplements. When the prices declared by the appellant were compared with the value of contemporaneous imports as per the data available in the NIDB and also as per the manufacturer s price list, there was a vast difference and in some items the declared price was half or less of the manufactured price/contemporaneous import prices - The importer has not produced any license or no objection certificate from the FSSAI regarding the quality and expiry date of the imported goods. He submits that not only is there no positive evidence that the imported goods were of inferior quality and were of short shelf life in any of the bills of entries or supporting documents but it is also impossible for the importer to have imported such goods without a license from the FSSAI. Therefore, the mere assertion of the appellant that they have imported inferior quality goods with short shelf life cannot be accepted. The goods declared transaction value was correctly rejected under Rule 12 of the Valuation Rules by the original authority and such rejection were upheld by the impugned order - The value of the similar goods were obtained not only from other imports taken from NIDB data but also from the manufacturer s price lists. Under these circumstances, we find nothing incorrect in the order-in-original rejecting the transaction value under Rule 12 re-determining the value as per Rule 5 and demanding the differential duty along with interest and the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the same in the impugned order. As it is found that the duty short levied was correctly demanded under Section 28, penalty imposed under Section 114A also needs to be upheld. Penalty under Section 114AA - HELD THAT - Revenue has discharged its liability by comparing the declared value with contemporaneous imports as well as with the manufacturer s price list for the same goods and the difference was very large. In some cases the declared price was less than half. In the case of NEHA INTERCONTINENTAL (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, GOA 2006 (5) TMI 279 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , the factual finding of the Tribunal was that the rejection of the goods was only based on NIDB data which is not the case in the present dispute. The goods in question were food supplements and there were manufacturer s price list as well as imports by others of the same product. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the declared assessable value of the imported goods should be rejected under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules.
2. Whether the re-determination of the assessable value under Rule 5 was appropriate.
3. Whether the penalties imposed under Sections 112(a), 114A, and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 were justified.
4. Whether the differential duty demand under Section 28(8) along with interest under Section 28AA was valid.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Declared Assessable Value under Rule 12:
The appellant imported food supplements and declared a value which was significantly lower than the contemporaneous import values and the manufacturer's price list. The customs officers, suspecting undervaluation, initiated an enquiry and compared the declared values with the National Import Database (NIDB) and the manufacturer's price list, finding substantial discrepancies. The appellant argued that the goods were of inferior quality and had a limited expiry date, hence purchased at lower prices. However, no such declaration was made in the import documents or Bill of Entry, and no evidence was provided to support this claim. The Tribunal noted that inferior quality goods with short shelf life could not have been imported without a valid license from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), which was not produced by the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the declared value under Rule 12, finding that the customs officers had reasonable doubt about the truth and accuracy of the declared value.

2. Re-determination of Assessable Value under Rule 5:
Once the declared value was rejected under Rule 12, the valuation had to be done sequentially as per the Customs Valuation Rules. The customs officers re-determined the value under Rule 5, which provides for valuation based on the value of similar goods. The re-determination was based on contemporaneous import data and the manufacturer's price list. The Tribunal found this approach to be correct and upheld the re-determined value, noting that the appellant's explanation for the low declared value was not supported by any documentary evidence.

3. Justification of Penalties under Sections 112(a), 114A, and 114AA:
The Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed under Sections 112(a), 114A, and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalty under Section 114A was upheld as the duty short-levied was correctly demanded under Section 28. The penalty under Section 114AA was also upheld as the appellant had knowingly or intentionally made false declarations regarding the value of the imported goods. The Tribunal noted that the declared value was only a fraction of the manufacturer's price list, indicating a clear case of mis-declaration.

4. Validity of Differential Duty Demand under Section 28(8) and Interest under Section 28AA:
The Tribunal upheld the differential duty demand of Rs. 11,07,864/- under Section 28(8) along with applicable interest under Section 28AA. The re-determined value under Rule 5 justified the differential duty demand, and the appellant's failure to provide evidence supporting the lower declared value further validated the customs officers' actions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected the appeal and upheld the impugned order, affirming the rejection of the declared value under Rule 12, the re-determination of the assessable value under Rule 5, the imposition of penalties under Sections 112(a), 114A, and 114AA, and the differential duty demand along with interest. The appellant's arguments were found to be unsupported by evidence, and the customs officers' actions were deemed appropriate and lawful.