9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1047 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - Hot Rolled Coils (HR Coils) - rejection of declared value - similar goods or not? - Revenue wants to enhance the declared value of HR Coils on the bases of alleged contemporaneous imports HR Plates - Rule 5 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - Section 14 of the Customs Act. Held that - The valuation of imported goods is required to be done in terms of Section 14 ibid read with the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The transaction value of imported goods can be rejected only as per the provisions of Rule 12 ibid. As per Clause (iii) of explanation under Rule 12, if contemporary import of identical or similar goods is noticed at the higher price, invoice value can be rejected and same can be determined under Rule 5 to 9 of the Rules. The said rule 12 ibid provide for proper officer seeking clarification from the importer to provide further information to satisfy the correctness of the declared assessable value - In the present case, the respondents did submit the invoice, irrecoverable LC and supporting contract documents with reference to the impugned consignments. Nothing more is required with the importer to further substantiate the value. Merely because the assessee failed to submit any payment certificate or Bill of Exchange, the Assessing officer rejected the value declared by the respondent/assessee. The Assessing officer has to give valid reasons in order to reject the declared value and thereafter to proceed with the re-assessment, after due enhancement. Explanation (1)(i)(iii)(a) in Rule 12 appears to have applied by the adjudicating authority in the present case. As per case records, the assessing officer having noticed higher value of contemporaneous import of HR Steel Plates, raised the doubt regarding the correctness of declared value. The legal provisions mentioned in the Explanation clearly stipulates that the contemporaneous value should be significantly higher for identical or similar goods at or about the same time, in a comparable commercial transaction. We find in the present case due examination about this crucial aspect has not been done by the assessing officer and comparison based on the contemporaneous import is not proper. Whether the HR Steel Plates, with which the adjudicating authority has compared the HR Coils, are really similar goods in terms of definition of similar goods? - Held that - HR Coil and HR Steel Plates cannot be said to be similar or identical goods. If the revenue is rejecting the value declared by the respondent, then they are bound to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the goods compared with are similar goods or identical goods. In our view HR Coils and HR Plates cannot be termed as one and the same for the purpose of contemporaneous value. Both the goods are different in nature and therefore the values relied upon by the Department for enhancement of declared value is not legally sustainable. It is not the case of revenue that it is either a Hawala transaction or remittance of additional consideration by the respondent to the exporter, over and above the declared transaction value. The value declared by the respondent was to be remitted through the banking channel. The revenue has failed to establish its claim on the basis of contemporaneous import. The major factor which prompted the learned Commissioner to set aside the order-in-assessment passed by the Adjudication Authority was that in arriving at figure of US 460 PMT the Adjudicating Authority relied upon the value of import of HR Steel Plates and since HR Coils & HR Steel Plates are not similar, therefore there was no reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the value declared by the respondent - the Adjudicating Authority has erred in rejecting the declared price/transaction value of the goods imported by the respondent by taking recourse to Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Enhancement of declared value of Hot Rolled Coils (HR Coils) based on contemporaneous imports of Hot Rolled Plates (HR Plates). 2. Determination of transaction value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Rejection of declared value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. 4. Comparison of HR Coils with HR Plates as similar goods. 5. Acceptance of transaction value in light of previous judgments and statutory guidelines. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Enhancement of Declared Value of HR Coils: The Revenue sought to enhance the declared value of HR Coils based on alleged contemporaneous imports of HR Plates. The respondent had entered into a contract for importing HR Coils at declared prices of USD 400 per MT and USD 385 per MT. The Adjudicating Authority, doubting the declared import value, re-determined the value of HR Coils at USD 460 PMT based on contemporaneous imports of HR Plates. 2. Determination of Transaction Value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962: Section 14 stipulates that the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value, i.e., the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India for delivery at the time and place of importation. The Revenue argued that the value should be based on the prevailing market price at the time and place of importation, citing Supreme Court decisions in Rajkumar Knitting Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Ispat Industries Ltd. 3. Rejection of Declared Value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007: Rule 12 allows for the rejection of declared value if the proper officer has reason to doubt its truth or accuracy. The respondent provided invoices, letters of credit, and contract documents to substantiate the declared value. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the declared value due to the absence of payment certificates or bills of exchange, but the Tribunal found this reasoning insufficient. 4. Comparison of HR Coils with HR Plates as Similar Goods: The Tribunal examined whether HR Plates and HR Coils are similar goods under Rule 2(f) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. "Similar goods" must have like characteristics, perform the same functions, and be commercially interchangeable. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner that HR Plates and HR Coils are not commercially interchangeable, as they serve different purposes and have different manufacturing processes and costs. 5. Acceptance of Transaction Value in Light of Previous Judgments and Statutory Guidelines: The Tribunal cited previous judgments, including Arya Ship Breaking Corporation and Highland Liquors Pvt. Ltd., which supported the acceptance of transaction value unless valid reasons for rejection are recorded. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to establish that HR Plates and HR Coils are similar goods and did not provide valid reasons for rejecting the declared value. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that HR Plates and HR Coils are not similar goods and that the Revenue failed to provide valid reasons for rejecting the declared transaction value. The declared value should be accepted unless there are valid reasons for rejection as provided in the Customs Valuation Rules. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the declared transaction value was upheld.
|
