2024 (10) TMI 514 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - rejection of transaction value declared by the appellant - rejection on the basis of some contemporaneous imports - admissible evidences or not - Penalty imposed on Shri Sanjay Mehta, Partner of the Appellant-company. HELD THAT - The rejection of transaction value can be done only on the basis of cogent and comparable material and when there is no case of contemporaneous bill of entry or contemporaneous import available on record, the transaction value cannot be rejected on the basis of materials which are not admissible into evidence. For rejection of transaction value, contemporaneous import of identical and/or similar import is essential. The ld. adjudicating authority has not taken into account the evidences submitted by the appellant on contemporaneous imports with lower value. Also, he has not furnished the details of the Bills of Entry where higher value has been adopted. The ld. adjudicating authority has also not followed the valuation rules in a systemic mannerto re-determine the Assessable value, by stating that it will be in conflict with the intelligence about the rampant under-invoicing as alleged in paragraph 14.4 of the notice. In the impugned order, it has been admitted that none of the Rules from Valuation Rule 4 to Rule 8 are applicable and valuation has been done under Rule 9 of the valuation rules - the declared value in the Bills of Entry cannot be rejected on the basis of some details mentioned in the Proforma Invoice and documents attached with the said email. Penalty imposed on Shri Sanjay Mehta, Partner of the Appellant-company - HELD THAT - It is observed that the ingredients required for imposing penalty on him under Section 114AA of the Customs Act are not existing in this case. Accordingly, the penalty imposed on him is liable to be set aside. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:

1. Rejection of Transaction Value.
2. Genuineness of Documents.
3. Application of Valuation Rules.
4. Limitation and Challenging Assessment Orders.
5. Imposition of Penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Transaction Value:

The central issue was whether the transaction value declared by the appellant for 130 consignments could be rejected. The Commissioner rejected the transaction value based on an email and a proforma invoice, alleging undervaluation. However, the Tribunal found that the Department failed to provide evidence to substantiate the authenticity of these documents. The Tribunal noted that the rejection of transaction value should be based on cogent and comparable material, and in the absence of contemporaneous imports at higher prices, the declared value should not be rejected. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court decision in Eicher Tractors P. Ltd., emphasizing that a price list is not proof of transaction value and cannot be used to reject declared values without evidence of misdeclaration.

2. Genuineness of Documents:

The Tribunal scrutinized the documents relied upon by the Department, particularly the email and proforma invoice. The appellant argued these were fabricated, with inconsistencies such as fake phone numbers and lack of authentication under Section 138C. The Tribunal observed that the Department did not disclose the source of these documents, nor did it establish their genuineness. Consequently, the Tribunal held that these documents could not be relied upon to reject the transaction value.

3. Application of Valuation Rules:

The Tribunal criticized the application of Valuation Rules, noting that the adjudicating authority did not follow a systematic approach to re-determine assessable value. It was highlighted that Rule 9 was applied inappropriately, comparing non-comparable goods. The Tribunal reiterated that rejection of transaction value requires evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods, as established in the Supreme Court case of Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta Vs. South India Television Pvt. Ltd.

4. Limitation and Challenging Assessment Orders:

The Tribunal addressed the issue of limitation, noting that the Show Cause Notice was issued beyond the normal period without sufficient grounds for invoking the extended period. Additionally, the Tribunal emphasized that the original assessment orders were not challenged, rendering the demand for differential duty unsustainable. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in ITC vs. Commissioner, which mandates modification of assessment orders through appropriate proceedings before raising demands.

5. Imposition of Penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act:

The Tribunal examined the penalty imposed on Shri Sanjay Mehta, finding that the necessary ingredients for imposing a penalty under Section 114AA were absent. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty on Shri Sanjay Mehta was unjustified and should be set aside.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals filed by both appellants. It held that the demands of duty, interest, and penalties were not sustainable due to the lack of evidence supporting the rejection of transaction value, improper application of valuation rules, and failure to challenge the original assessment orders. The penalty imposed on Shri Sanjay Mehta was also set aside due to the absence of requisite conditions for its imposition.

← Previous Next →