9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 19,83,843/- respectively. 1.2 The department decided to value the consignments covered by the Bills of Entry No. 12, dated 17-2-2006, No. 13 dated 17-3-2006 @ 2 US$ per Kg. CIF and since the declared weight of these consignments was 18010 kgs. and 18710 kgs., the duty in respect of these consignments was assessed on the assessable value of Rs. 16,01,089/- and Rs. 16,63,319 respectively and accordingly these consignments were cleared on payment of duty amounting to Rs. 5,51,468/- and Rs. 5,72,903/- respectively. 1.3 In respect of other two consignments covered by the Bill of Entry No. 14 and 15 dated 17-2-2006 duty was assessed on the basis of the declared CIF price and accordingly, these consignments were cleared on payment of duty amounting to Rs. 6,07,136/- and Rs. 6,83,302/- respectively. 1.4 Subsequently, four show cause notices, each dated 9-8-2006, were issued for rejecting the declared transaction value in respect of each of the above mentioned four bills of entry and for upward revision of transaction value based on the value of contemporaneous imports of identical /similar items as available in NIDB. Each of these show cause notices sought recovery o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Knitting Mills Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1998 (98) E.L.T. 292 (S.C.), that the Commissioner (Appeals) grossly erred in giving finding that transaction value can only be rejected if the conditions specified in sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules are not satisfied, as transaction value can be rejected under Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules also and that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct. 5. Shri Prem Ranjan, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that declared transaction value are genuine, that there is marginal variation between the declared transaction value and the transaction value determined based on the NIDB data, that while the respondent had imported the goods, in question, in 2006, the bills of entries relied upon by the Department are of 2005 and thus, the imports, whose prices are sought to be adopted, are not contemporaneous with the imports in this case, that there is no evidence that the quantities are comparable and that in view of this, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 7. During the period o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stantially affect the value of the goods and (c) the buyers and suppliers are not "related person" within the meaning of this terms as defined in Rule 2(2) and if such relation exists, the same has not influenced the transaction value. Rule 9 provides for inclusion of the cost of certain expenses incurred by buyer, which are not included in the transaction value and also the inclusion of the cost of transport of the imported goods to the place of importation, loading and handling associated with the delivery of the imported goods at the place of importation and cost of insurance. Rule 10 A of the Valuation Rules provided for rejection of the transaction value declared under Rule 10 when the proper officer has reasons to doubt the truth or accuracy of the same and in such a case, the proper officer can conduct the necessary inquiry and if warranted can reject the declared transaction value after hearing the assessee, if hearing is requested by the assessee. Thus, under the provisions of Section 14(1) read with Section 14(1A) and Customs Valuation Act, 1988, while the assessable value of the imported goods is the price actually paid or payable for the goods as adjusted under Rule 9 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Eicher Tractor Ltd. reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 has held that if the declared transaction value does not fall in any of the exceptions enumerated in sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules, there is no question of rejecting the declared transaction value and determining the same under Rule 3(2) by sequential application of Rule 5, 6, 7 and 8. 6.1 Though the declared transaction value can also be rejected under Rule 10A if the proper officer has reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to any import, for rejecting the transaction value, there must be concrete reason, not mere suspicion. In fact, Rule 10 A supplements Rule 4(2) and covers the situations not covered under Rule 4(2) e.g. declared price of some articles imported being even less than the prevailing price of raw material, some garments of latest fashion or electronic goods of latest model being imported at a huge discount claiming to have been purchased as stocklot in a clearance sale, existence of evidence indicating payment of some amount by the importer to the supplier over and above the price mentioned in the invoice etc. In this regard, the Apex Court in para-11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance with the judgment of Apex Court in case of D. Bhoomull reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1546 (S.C.), the preponderance of probability in support of allegation of the transaction value not being true and correct will be treated as having been established. Mere difference between the declared transaction value and price of contemporaneous imports of similar/identical goods is not sufficient for rejecting the declared transaction value - for rejecting the declared transaction value, it must be proved with cogent evidence that the difference is due to the conditions of Rule 4(2) not being satisfied or due to existence of reasons for doubting the declared value which would justify invoking Rule 10 A. 7. In this case, we find that the department simply seeks to reject the declared transaction value on the basis of NIDB data regarding import of the similar /identical goods without giving the details of those imports - whether the goods are identical to the goods under assessment or are similar to the goods under assessment within the meaning of these terms as defined in Rule 2(c ) and 2 (e) respectively of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and also the difference between the quanti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
