2023 (6) TMI 1090 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - white poppy seeds 99% purity - rejection of transaction value - enhancement of assessable value on consignments - trigger of rule 10A/rule 12 and in deployment of ammunition in rule 8/ rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988/ Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - HELD THAT - In the amended context of rule 4(2) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 that applies to most of the impugned consignments, it does not suffice for those limiting factors to be drawn upon without proffering evidence of existence of such defined circumstances; mere whims or fancies cannot take the hue of revealed truth or oracular exclamation. The lack of factual evidence in the findings to sustain the contention of cartel operations impedes the consequence of rejection of declared value. Even if some suspicion of cartelization did cross the minds of customs authorities, the assessments were provisional and ample time was available for appropriate inquiry into facts to be incorporated in the notice preceding finalization of assessment. The situation obtaining in proviso to rule 3(2) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 has not retained that special consideration for being resorted to in consignments imported after 10th October 2007. The rejection of declared value is, thus, without authority of law. Turning to the adoption of prices from Public Ledger , a survey of the several alternatives in Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 and of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 do not admit to such option. Rule 8 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 and rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, titled as the residual method , envisages determination using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of the Rules and is further qualified by restriction on adoption of a value on the basis of, inter alia, price of goods for export to country other than India which the Public Ledger makes no pretence of not being. The specific discarding of resort to Public Ledger prices for reason of discord with the prescriptions of the Rules framed under section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 is no less applicable here. There is no allegation that the prices declared do not reflect the contractual consideration. There is no allegation of misdeclaration of description of the goods. The conditions precedent to invoking of rule 10A of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 or rule 12 of 4(2) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 have not been duly discharged to validate shifting the burden of proof to the importer. The proceedings of the lower authorities have been undertaken on erroneous premise of law which does not even have the saving grace of proper resort to the relevant method of valuation and requires the impugned orders to be set aside - Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Justification for invoking Rule 10A/Rule 12 and Rule 8/Rule 9 of Customs Valuation Rules.
2. Rejection of declared transaction value based on alleged cartel operation.
3. Adoption of prices from 'Public Ledger' for valuation.
4. Sequential application of valuation methods.
5. Compliance with procedural requirements under Rule 10A.

Summary:

1. Justification for invoking Rule 10A/Rule 12 and Rule 8/Rule 9 of Customs Valuation Rules:
The appellants contested the invocation of Rule 10A/Rule 12 and the use of Rule 8/Rule 9 for revising the assessable value of imported 'white poppy seeds 99% purity' from Turkey. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities relied on alleged cartel operations to justify the rejection of declared values and subsequent enhancement of assessable values, resulting in significant duty liabilities.

2. Rejection of declared transaction value based on alleged cartel operation:
The appellants argued that no evidence was provided to demonstrate cartel operations among suppliers, and the mere allegation of a cartel was insufficient for rejecting the declared transaction value. The Tribunal emphasized that the lack of factual evidence to support cartel operations impeded the rejection of declared values, as mere suspicion was not enough to discard the transaction value.

3. Adoption of prices from 'Public Ledger' for valuation:
The Tribunal found that reliance on 'Public Ledger' prices, which reflect international prices for shipments to Europe, was not in conformity with the Customs Valuation Rules. The Tribunal highlighted that Rule 8 of the 1988 Rules and Rule 9 of the 2007 Rules, which are residual methods, do not permit the use of prices from 'Public Ledger' as they are based on exports to countries other than India.

4. Sequential application of valuation methods:
The appellants contended that the lower authorities failed to sequentially apply the prescribed methods for valuation. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the lower authorities did not provide reasoned elaboration for discarding preceding methods before resorting to the residual method. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of following the sequential scheme laid down in the Rules.

5. Compliance with procedural requirements under Rule 10A:
The Tribunal observed that the procedural requirements under Rule 10A, which include providing the importer with the grounds for doubting the declared value and offering a reasonable opportunity to be heard, were not complied with. The Tribunal reiterated that Rule 10A is a procedural provision meant to initiate a dialogue between the importer and customs authorities and should be restricted by the legislative intent set out in Rule 4(2).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the lower authorities' proceedings were based on an erroneous premise of law and lacked proper resort to the relevant method of valuation. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 08/06/2023)

← Previous Next →