9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f value of imported goods and issued respective Orders-in-Original accordingly. 2.2 The appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the respective Order-in-Original enhancing the value of the imported goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected these appeals. Thereafter the appellants are before this Tribunal against those Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The details of these cases mentioning Bill of Entry, Quantity of imports, value declared, value enhanced as mentioned by the appellants are given in the following Tables : TABLE 1 APPEAL No. C/349/2006-M/s Peekay Steel Castings Pvt. Ltd. against Order-in-Appeal No 142/2006 dated 22.5.2006 Bill of Entry Number & date Quantity of HMS (MT) Value Declared by Appellants (Us $ per MT) Value Adopted by Customs (US $ per MT) Excess Duty Paid (Rs) 145126/13.7.4 198.020 252.50 (As per High Seas Sale Agreement) 268 30,356 145527/22.7.04 180.940 253 (As per supplier's invoice) 268 22.886 Excess Duty paid : Total 53,242 TABLE 2 APPEAL No. C/395/2006-M/s Peekay Re-Rolling Mills (P) Ltd against Order-in-Appeal N 143/06 dated 22.5.2006 Bill of Entry Number ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment showing the import of HMS, etc. to show that the appellants were regular importers. (ii) The common issue in these five appeals is whether the Customs can reject transaction value and enhance the price of imported goods merely based on the price of purported similar goods imported at other Ports in terms of Rule 6 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. (iii) The appellants submit that in terms of Rule 3 (i) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of the price of Imported Goods) Rules 1988, the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value. If the value cannot be determined under clause (i) then only the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially under Rules 5 to 8 of the Rules. (iv) In terms of Rule 4(1), transaction value of imported goods shall be the price actually paid or payable for the goods. The transaction value shall be rejected only when transactions come within the scope of exceptions or special circumstances particularized in Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. (v) The adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) did not record any finding that transaction value cannot be accepted because the transact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12280 PMT. 6.1 The Commissioner (Appeals) in these cases sustained the orders of the original adjudicating authority enhancing the value. However, we find that nowhere the original adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) in their orders have been able to convincingly reject the transaction value declared by the appellants in their import documents. We find that the Revenue has not been able to convincingly prove that the contemporaneous imports quoted by the original adjudicating authority in the orders were of 'identical goods'. 6.2 Further provisions of Rule 3 (ii) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of the Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 are clear that if the transaction value of the imported goods has to be rejected, then value has to be determined by proceeding sequentially through Rules 5 to 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules 1988. We do not find any evidence that the original adjudicating authority or the Commissioner (Appeals) exhausted the application of Rule 4 or Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules 1988 before deciding he valuation of imported goods under Rule 6 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. There is no proper justification gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsaction value is acceptable for customs purposes under the provisions of sub-rule (3) below..." 1. Inserted by M.f. Notification No. 41/2001-Cus (N.T.), dated 7-9-2001. 2. Re-numbered by M.f. (D.R.) Notification No. 41/2001-Cus (N.T.) dtd 7-9-2001 6.3 We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. Vs. CC., Mumbai (supra) has made certain observations which support the stand of the appellants. It is to be noted that Hon'ble supreme Court in this case refers to the un-amended Rules 4(2) of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, which was later amended by way of insertion /renumbering by M.F. (d.R.) notification No. 41/2001-Cus (N.T.), dated 7-9-2001. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case inter-allia observed as follows : " 7. The rules which have been framed are the Customs, Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. The rules came into force on 16th August, 1988. Under Rule 3(i) "the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value". "Transaction value"' has been defined in Rule 2(f) as meaning the value determined in accordance with Rule 4. Rule 4(1) in turn states : "The transaction value of imported goods shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsp; .... 12. Rule 4(1) speaks of the transaction value. Utilisation of the definite article indicates that what should be accepted as the value for the purpose of assessment to customs duty is the price actually paid for the particular transaction, unless of course the price is unacceptable for the reasons set out in Rule 4(2). "Payable" in the context of the language of Rule 4(1) must, therefore, be read as referring to "the particular transaction" and payability in respect of the transaction envisages a situation where payment of price may be deferred. 13. ... .... .... 14. It is only when the transaction value under Rule 4 is rejected, then under Rule 3(ii) the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially through Rules 5 to 8 of the Rules. Conversely if the transaction value can be determined under Rule 4(1) and does not fall under any of the exceptions in Rule 4(2), there is no question of determining the value under the subsequent Rules." 6.4 Further in the case of Chaudhary Ship Breakers Vs. C.C., Ahmedabad (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that mere suspicion upon the correctness of the invoices produced by the importer is not sufficient to reject the transaction value and onus in such cases to prove the undervaluation is on the Revenue. In this regard, we quote from this decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to reinforce the stand that the Revenue has not been right in all these appeal cases when the declared invoices value were enhanced by the adjudicating authority. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case inter-alia observes as under : " 11. .... .... .... .... Needless to add that 'reason to doubt' does not mean 'reason to suspect'. A mere suspicion upon the correctness of the invoice produced by an importer is not sufficient to reject it as evidence of the value of imported goods. The doubt held by the officer concerned has to be based on some material evidence and is not to be formed on a mere suspicion or speculation. We may hasten to add that although strict rules of evidence do not apply to adjudication proceedings under the Act, yet the Adjudicating Authority has to examine the probative value of the documents on w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We also take support from the decision of CESTAT, Chennai in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. Pushpanjali Silks Pvt. Ltd. (supra) which held that unless there is contention by the Department that any amount over and above the agreed price was paid by importer to supplier, or that importer was related to supplier, or price paid was influenced by any extra-commercial consideration, there cannot be any valid reason to reject the transaction value under Rule 4(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. 6.7 The Revenue's contention that the Customs were justified in enhancing the value based on contemporaneous imports do not have any force when we find that the price quoted cannot be proved that they were of "identical" goods and when there was no evidence to justify the rejection of the invoice values declared by the appellants. The reason(s) quoted by the Revenue are not applicable to the facts of the present appeals. Further the case laws quoted in supports by the Revenue are not applicable to the facts of these appeals. 6.8 We find sufficient force in the arguments of the appellants that the Revenue is not able to prove any undervaluation or mis-declarat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
