2023 (4) TMI 788 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - NIDB data of contemporaneous imports - electric motors of various capacities - comparison of values of the electric motors declared in the bills of entry with the values of electric motors in the National Import Data Base (NIDB) - rejection of declared value - Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules - recovery of differential duty invoking the extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - It is a matter of record that the appellant declared the transaction values which were accepted in two cases and enhanced in three cases by the proper officer at the time of clearance of the goods. Long after the clearance of the goods, the officers from the SIIB compared the values in these bills of entry with the values of similar goods cleared and found that the values were different. For this reason, they initiated investigation and recorded the statement of the proprietor. In his statement, the proprietor said that what he declared was the transaction value and that he was not aware of the values in the NIDB. This contention must be accepted because the NIDB is data base of the Customs department and it is not open for public to see. All that is required from the importer in the bill of entry is to declare his transaction value truly and accurately. If there is any relationship between the buyer and the seller or if there is any additional consideration for sale they also have to be declared. In this case, there is no allegation that there was any additional consideration for sale or that the buyer and seller were related. Therefore, there was no lapse on the part of the respondent in his declaration. Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules provides for proper officer to reject the transaction value and it requires two steps. On receiving additional information or if no such information is provided by the importer, the proper officer still has reasonable doubt regarding the truth and accuracy of the transaction value, he can reject it under Rule 12 and re-determine the value under Rules 4 to 9 in that order. Rule 4 deals with transaction values of identical goods and Rule 5 deals with transaction value of similar goods - the importer has no means of knowing at what prices others were importing goods which are identical or similar and at various customs locations across the country. Only Customs officers have access to this information. The quantity of the goods imported by the appellant varied between 525 and 671 electric motors in each of the five bills of entry and in the imports whose values were taken from comparison, the quantities ranged between 1 and 185 motors. The quantities imported by the respondent were three times to 500 times the quantities in the bills of entry with which the values have been compared. No speaking order was issued. Since the importer had waived its show cause notice and order as per the provisions of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, it was held that the importer cannot renege on his submission waiver of SCN and the order after the goods have been cleared. The only thing established during the investigation is that other importers imported goods through Nhava Sheva port at different prices and the difference in quantities was between 3 times to 500 times. This does not in any way prove that the declared transaction value was not true or not accurate. The findings of the impugned order agreed upon - there are no reason to interfere with it - The impugned order is upheld and appeal is rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether there was under-valuation of imported goods and whether the declared value needs to be rejected and re-determined.
2. Whether the ingredients for invoking the extended period of limitation were present to enable the department to confirm the demand beyond the normal period of limitation.

Summary:

Issue 1: Under-valuation and Re-determination of Declared Value
The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the declared value must first be rejected under Rule 12 before it could be re-determined under Rules 4 to 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules. The declared and assessed values were rejected based on NIDB data of contemporaneous imports of similar goods. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the Annexure-A to the show cause notice lacked crucial details like quantity, quality, manufacturer details, and technical specifications to establish that the goods were similar. The adjudicating authority heavily relied on the proprietor's confession to conclude undervaluation, but the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that NIDB data alone is insufficient to reject the transaction value under Rule 12 and re-determine it under Rule 5. Therefore, the re-determination of value based on NIDB data was deemed improper and illegal, leading to the setting aside of the OIO.

Issue 2: Extended Period of Limitation
The Revenue argued that the proprietor's confessional statement corroborated the NIDB data, indicating a conscious guilty mind and mis-declaration of value. The Revenue cited various case laws to assert that an admitted fact need not be proved and that statements made before Customs officers are admissible as evidence. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the transaction value can only be rejected if there is a reasonable doubt about its truth and accuracy. The NIDB is a Customs department database, not accessible to the public, and the importer declared the transaction value truthfully and accurately without any additional consideration or relationship between the buyer and seller. Therefore, there was no lapse on the respondent's part in his declaration, and the undue reliance on the proprietor's statement was incorrect.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the goods were initially assessed and cleared after payment of duty. The subsequent comparison with NIDB data and the proprietor's statement did not establish that the declared transaction value was untrue or inaccurate. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and found no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld.

(Pronounced in open Court on 18/04/2023)