2018 (10) TMI 223 - AT - Customs

Valuation of export goods - iron ore fines and lumps - under-valuation - rejection of declared export value as per Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation (determination of value of export goods) Rules, 2007 - determination of the value under Rule 6, ignoring Rule 4. Held that - As far as the question of rejection of transaction values is concerned, we find that Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation (determination of value of export goods) Rules, 2007 clearly lays down mechanism for rejection of the declared value. Rule 8 (2) (iii) states that the proper officer shall have the powers to raise doubt on the declared value based on certain reasons which may include the significant variation in value on which goods of like kind and quality are exported at or around same time in comparable quantities and comparable commercial transaction. It also provides for rejecting the value on the basis of the value being significantly higher compared to the market value of goods at the time of export. In this case, value declared in the shipping bills is clearly far below the other values which the Asst. Commissioner found and the shipping bills to other buyers by the same exporter as also the prices at which similar goods were exported to China from India. Therefore, we find that Asst. Commissioner is correct in doubting the accuracy of the value declared in the shipping bills and after hearing the appellant rejecting the same. However, after having rejected the value under Rule 8 he should have gone through Rules 4 to 6 in a sequence. The Asst. Commissioner has not determined the value in terms of Rule 4 on the ground that the same exporter has not exported the goods during the same month to other buyers. While the rejection of the transaction value under Rule 8 by the lower authority is correct, determining the value under Rule 6, ignoring Rule 4 is not correct because this Rule does not require exports to be made by the same exporter or within the same month for the Rule to apply. It is a fit case to be remanded to the original authority to re-determine the value in terms of Rule 4 of Customs Valuation (determination of value of export goods) Rules, 2007 - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Rejection of declared value in relation to export goods
- Determination of export value based on Customs Valuation Rules
- Appeal against assessment orders and rejection of transaction value

Analysis:
1. The case involved three appeals dealing with the rejection of declared export values of iron ore fines and lumps by the Asst. Commissioner of Customs. The appellant's declared values were found to be lower than prevalent market rates, leading to rejection under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.

2. The lower authority determined the value of the exported goods under Rule 6, enhancing the value and demanding duty. The appellant appealed, arguing that the transaction value should have been accepted, and the lower authority erred in not following Rules 4 and 5 before jumping to Rule 6 for value determination.

3. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel reiterated arguments against the rejection of transaction value and the improper application of valuation rules by the Asst. Commissioner. The Commissioner (AR) supported the lower authority's decision, citing significant variations in declared values compared to market rates and prices of similar goods exported to China from India.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the case, acknowledging the Asst. Commissioner's power to doubt declared values under Rule 8 based on significant variations in values of similar goods exported at comparable times. However, the Tribunal found fault in the lower authority's direct application of Rule 6 without considering Rules 4 and 5 sequentially.

5. The Tribunal concluded that while the rejection of transaction value was valid, the determination of value under Rule 6 without assessing Rule 4 was incorrect. Rule 4 does not mandate exports by the same exporter or within the same month for comparison, requiring a re-examination of value determination under Rule 4.

6. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, directing the original authority to re-determine the value in accordance with Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The judgment highlighted the importance of sequential application of valuation rules for accurate determination of export values.