9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 27.06.2008, 35/2008 dated 01.07.2008 and 31/2008 dated 08.07.2008. These products were chargeable to export duty on ad valorem basis during the relevant period. The declared value in the shipping bills was USD ($) 76, 78 and 86.5 per Metric Ton respectively in the above three shipping bills. The Asst. Commissioner of Customs assessing these shipping bills found that these values were much lower than the prevalent market rates and hence, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to explain their case, rejected the declared export value as per Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation (determination of value of export goods) Rules, 2007. This rule reads as follows: "8. Rejection of declared value.- (1) When the proper officer has reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have the powers to raise doubts on the declared value based on certain reasons which may include - (a) the significant variation in value at which goods of like kind and quality exported at or about the same time in comparable quantities in a comparable commercial transaction were assessed. (b) the significantly higher value compared to the market value of goods of like kind and quality at the time of export. (c) the misdeclaration of goods in parameters such as description, quality, quantity, year of manufacture or production." 3. Once the declared value has been rejected, the value of the export goods has to be determined in terms of Rules 4 through 6 sequentially. Rule 4 requires the value of export goods to be based on the tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd it could not have been rejected. There is no finding in the impugned order but a summary rejection of the grounds stated that the case laws cited by them do not apply. (b) The Asst. Commissioner has recorded the computation of value under Rule 5 of Customs Valuation Rules was not feasible and there is no scope in the law to not adopt method because it was not feasible. (c) It has been accepted that iron ore lumps and iron ore fines are different and price of lumps has been taken as USD 2 less than that of fines without any supporting reasoning. (d) The Asst. Commissioner has rejected following Rule 4 on the ground that there are no exports by the same exporter during the month and that there are no exports of iron ore lumps. The pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and the value has to be determined in terms of Rule 6. The first appellate authority has correctly examined the order and upheld the same. Therefore, the appeals are liable to be rejected. 7. We have considered the arguments on the both sides. As far as the question of rejection of transaction values is concerned, we find that Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation (determination of value of export goods) Rules, 2007 clearly lays down mechanism for rejection of the declared value. Rule 8 (2) (iii) states that the proper officer shall have the powers to raise doubt on the declared value based on certain reasons which may include the significant variation in value on which goods of like kind and quality are exported at or around same time in comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted at or around the same time to other buyers in terms of Rule 4 whether or not the exporter is the same as the appellant. In conclusion, we find while the rejection of the transaction value under Rule 8 by the lower authority is correct, determining the value under Rule 6, ignoring Rule 4 is not correct because this Rule does not require exports to be made by the same exporter or within the same month for the Rule to apply. We find this a fit case to be remanded to the original authority to re-determine the value in terms of Rule 4 of Customs Valuation (determination of value of export goods) Rules, 2007.
8. The appeals are allowed by way of remand.
(Pronounced in the Open Court on 28.09.2018) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
