9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value has been rejected without following the Valuation Rules. It is a fact that the appellant has accepted the enhanced value and paid the differential duty, but only for the reasons that the consignment was incurring a heavy demurrage and detention charge by the custodian. Therefore, the acceptance of enhancement of the price by the department is not at their own volition but under compulsion so as to avoid heavy demurrage and detention charges - If any transaction value is to be rejected by the assessing officer it has to be done under the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act read with Customs Valuation Rule 2007. No such exercise has been undertaken by the adjudicating authority and also by learned Commissioner (Appeals), while passing the impugned order. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 50440 of 2019 - Final Order No. 50744/2019 - Dated:- 27-5-2019 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Prem Ranjan, Advocate - for the appellant Shri Rakesh Kumar, DR - for the respondent ORDER Per Bijay Kumar : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00 Pcs of 1 meter and other 300 Pcs. of 1.5 meter on the ground of this mis-declaration in the description of the goods imported vide the said Bill of Entry the consignment were seized under the provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The samples were also drawn and the container was resealed with the Customs seal and handed over to the custodian under Panchnama dated 7.6.2016. During the investigation statement of Shri Tushar Dang, partner of the appellant was recorded on 9.6.2018 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, wherein he had accepted the mis-declaration and also paid the differential duty on the higher assessable value as arrived by the department. The declared value of ₹ 505588.40 was enhanced to ₹ 921686.30 by the department. The appellant had paid the differential duty amounting to ₹ 416097.90 and also waived the Show Cause Notice and also personal hearing and requested for the immediate clearance of imported consignment as the same was incurring heavy demurrage. 3. The adjudicating authority adjudicated the case by rejecting the declared value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar transactions fall within the exception under Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rule, the customs authorities are bound to accept the transaction value. It is submitted by the learned Advocate that the decision of Eicher Tractors although delivered in respect of old Valuation Rules of 1988, the provisions of Rules of Valuation under Customs Act, 1962 have not changed and remained the same after its substitution with effect from 10.10.2007. The concept of transaction value remains the same even after the enactment of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Thus, the ratio laid in Eicher Tractors are applicable in the new Valuation Rules as well. 8. Learned Advocate also placed reliance on this Tribunal ruling in the case of M/s Orient Sales and Others Vs. CCE ST Coordinate Bench at Allahabad Vide Final Order No. 70190-70195/2019 dated 29.1.2019 and the decision in the case of Innobiz Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Tuticorin - 2017 (352) ELT 82 (Tri.-Chennai) Therefore, the learned Advocate submits that the impugned order is not sustainable and required to be set aside in the appeal. 9. Learned DR on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the findings of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustbin 24 pcs. 4 1964.30 4 1964.30 0.00 2. MOP 80 Pcs. 2 3274.00 2.5 4092.50 818.50 3. Screw Driver 1000 Pcs. 1.5 30693.90 3.5 71619.00 40925.10 4. Cup for UJ Cross 454 Grs. 7.5 62545.10 9 75054.20 12509.10 5. UJ Cross 731 Doz. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of similar goods being sold in the Indian market. However, the adjudication order does not indicate as to how and where the market survey has been conducted and also how the transaction value has been rejected without following the Valuation Rules. It is a fact that the appellant has accepted the enhanced value and paid the differential duty, but only for the reasons that the consignment was incurring a heavy demurrage and detention charge by the custodian. Therefore, the acceptance of enhancement of the price by the department is not at their own volition but under compulsion so as to avoid heavy demurrage and detention charges. If any transaction value is to be rejected by the assessing officer it has to be done under the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act read with Customs Valuation Rule 2007 as stated above. No such exercise has been undertaken by the adjudicating authority and also by learned Commissioner (Appeals), while passing the impugned order. 13. We have also carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Departmental Representative and also considered the case laws cited by him. After perusal of the case laws we find that the facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, 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. That Rule 4 is limited to the transaction in question is also supported by the provisions of the other Rules each of which provide for alternate modes of valuation and allow evidence of value of goods other than those under assessment to be the basis of the assessable value. Thus, Rule 5 allows for the transaction value to be determined on the basis of identical goods imported into India at the same time; Rule 6 allows for the transaction value to be determined on the value of similar goods imported into India at the same time as the subject goods. Where there are no contemporaneous imports into India, the value is to be determined under Rule 7 by a process of deduction in the manner provided therein. If this is not possible the value is to be computed under Rule 7A. When value of the imported goods cannot be determined under any of these provisions, the value is required to be determined under Rule 8 using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of these rules and sub-section (1) of Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
