2023 (9) TMI 935 - AT - Customs

Valuation of Export duty on Iron ore - enhanced rate taken up by the Customs for levy of export duty - reliance placed on the contemporaneous prices noticed during that period - process of Adjudication and appeal proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) have been carried out in careless manner - HELD THAT - From the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), it is observed that he admits that proper procedure was not followed by the Adjudicating Authority while enhancing the transaction value. It is also seen from the Table 10 of the Order-in-Original that the Adjudicating Authority has not mentioned quantity involved in each of such exports, country to which such exports are made and quantity of such exports. Unless, all these parameters are taken up together and compared, the Department cannot directly arrive at the contemporaneous value. The entire process of Adjudication and appeal proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) have been carried out in a very casual and careless manner. The Commissioner (Appeals) after holding that the Adjudicating Authority was in error in going with enhancement still has rejected the appeal. He has directed the Assistant Commissioner to produce the documentary evidence to the appellant now, which has no meaning after the entire process has been completed. Impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the proper procedure followed by the Adjudicating Authority in enhancing the transaction value for export duty levy, adherence to the Rules under EVR 2007, failure to provide relied upon documents to the exporter, and the casual and careless manner in which the adjudication and appeal proceedings were conducted.

Enhancement of Transaction Value:
The Appellant exported Iron Ore during a specific period, and the Customs adopted an enhanced rate for levy of export duty. The Adjudicating Authority relied on contemporaneous prices to justify the enhancement without following the prescribed procedure under Rule 8 of EVR 2007. The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged the lack of following proper procedure by the Adjudicating Authority and highlighted the failure to provide the relied upon documents to the exporter, which is a legal requirement. The appeal was dismissed, but it was directed that the concerned authority must provide the relied upon documents to the exporter promptly.

Adherence to EVR 2007 Rules:
The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the Adjudicating Authority did not mention crucial details such as the quantity involved in each export, the destination country, and the actual quantity of exports. This lack of comprehensive comparison hindered the proper determination of contemporaneous value. Additionally, the Adjudicating Authority failed to follow the sequential application of Rules as mandated by EVR 2007, specifically neglecting Rules 4, 5, 6, and 7 before resorting to Rule 8 for transaction value determination.

Failure to Provide Documents and Casual Proceedings:
The Adjudicating Authority did not request the Bill Realization Certificate (BRC) from the appellant to verify the actual realization value of exports, leading to an erroneous decision-making process. The Commissioner (Appeals) criticized the casual and careless manner in which the Adjudication and appeal proceedings were conducted, highlighting the lack of notice to the appellant regarding the grounds for enhancement. Despite acknowledging errors in the enhancement process, the Commissioner (Appeals) still rejected the appeal, prompting the setting aside of the impugned Order-in-Appeals and allowing the appeals with consequential reliefs as per law.