2024 (3) TMI 568 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - rejection of declared value - enhancement of value - redetermination of value - goods were of better quality and the assessable value of the goods was higher than that declared by the appellant on comparison of the value with that of similar goods from the e-commerce sites - HELD THAT - In the present case, it is clear from the order passed by the Joint Commissioner that the appellant had in writing submitted that the matter may be adjudicated without issuance of show cause notice and the appellant did not desire to be heard in person. The appellant had also submitted a written statement dated August 23, 2019. Though the said statement dated August 23, 2019 has not been filed by the appellant, but from the order passed by the Joint Commissioner it clearly transpires that the appellant had in the said statement accepted the actual assessable value of each of the five types of jackets that were imported and this fact has been recorded in paragraph 20 of the order. The very fact that the appellant had agreed for enhancement of the declared value in the statement submitted to the assessing authority, itself implies that the appellant had not accepted the value declared by it in the Bill of Entry. The value declared in the Bill of Entry, therefore, automatically stood rejected. Further, once the appellant had accepted the enhanced value, it was really not necessary for the assessing authority to undertake the exercise of determining the value of the declared goods under the provisions of rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Valuation Rules. This is for the reason that it is only when the value of the imported goods cannot be determined under rule 3(1) for the reason that the declared value has been rejected under sub rule (2), that the value of the imported goods is required to be determined by proceeding sequentially through rules 4 to 9. As noticed above, the appellant had accepted the enhanced value. There was, therefore, no necessity for the assessing officer to determine the value in the manner provided for in rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Valuation Rules sequentially. The appellant had procured the goods from an overseas supplier based in Hongkong - The Adjudicating Officer had re-determined the value of the imported goods, not only because the appellant had accepted the value but also because of the contemporaneous data available on the e-commerce sites. When this price available on the sites was shown to the appellant, the appellant submitted a statement that the said price was acceptable to it - Adjudicating Officer has given detailed reasons for rejecting the transaction value under rule 12 and re-determining it under rule 5 of the 2007 of the Valuation Rules. It is also not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that duty was paid under duress. This objection had not been raised earlier and even otherwise there is no merit in this objection. If it was under duress, the appellant would not have paid the duty voluntarily without raising an objection. It is not possible to accept the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant. There is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of declared value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.
2. Re-determination of assessable value under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.
3. Waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing.
4. Acceptance of enhanced value by the appellant.
5. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Summary:

1. Rejection of declared value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007:
The appellant imported jackets and declared their value in the Bill of Entry dated July 22, 2019. The Joint Commissioner rejected this declared value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, citing that the goods were of better quality and had a higher assessable value than declared. This conclusion was based on a comparison with similar goods on e-commerce sites. The appellant waived the show cause notice and personal hearing and accepted the revised value in a statement dated August 23, 2019.

2. Re-determination of assessable value under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007:
The Joint Commissioner re-determined the assessable value under Rule 5 of the 2007 Valuation Rules after the appellant failed to produce the manufacturer's invoice. The re-assessed values were significantly higher than the declared values, leading to the conclusion that the goods were under-valued and liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, a penalty was imposed under Section 112(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. Waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing:
The appellant explicitly waived the issuance of a show cause notice and personal hearing, requesting an early decision. This waiver was confirmed in the appellant's written statement, where they accepted the revised value shown by the Joint Commissioner.

4. Acceptance of enhanced value by the appellant:
The appellant's acceptance of the enhanced value implied that the declared value was automatically rejected. The Tribunal noted that once the appellant accepted the enhanced value, there was no necessity for the assessing officer to determine the value sequentially under Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Valuation Rules.

5. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Joint Commissioner imposed a penalty on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, for knowingly and willingly submitting improper facts and mis-declaring the value of the goods to evade customs duty.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed as the appellant had accepted the enhanced value and waived the procedural requirements, including the show cause notice and personal hearing. The Tribunal upheld the re-determined value and the penalties imposed, finding no merit in the appellant's contentions.

← Previous Next →