9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 721X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s supplier, leave alone any evidence to that effect. Moreover, there are force in the argument of the appellants that the quantity imported is not comparable. Department is attempting to compare the value at which 23750 Nos of ICs were imported, with the value at which a meagre 13 Nos were imported vide another B/e. Department overlooked the very common principles of business that the price is dependent on volumes. Therefore, we find that the invocation of, Rule 4 of CVR, 2007, after rejecting the declared value under Rule 12 ibid, though for no cogent reasons, is not legally sustainable. The ultimate use of the imported goods cannot be criteria for deciding the valuation. Every business man is free to adopt his own way of conducting business. In any case, this cannot be reason for rejecting the value of the impugned goods. In the absence of any technical opinion obtained, comparing the impugned goods with other goods, simply on the basis of description, is not acceptable. Moreover, as per Rule 4 of CVR, 2007 the transaction value of identical goods in a sale at the same commercial level and in substantially the same quantity as the goods being valued shall be used to determi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferred appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on various grounds; the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has rejected the appeal filed by the appellants and upheld departments appeal. 2. Shri Pradyumna G.H., Advocate, appearing for the Appellant, submits that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner, without considering the written oral submissions made by the appellants or the facts of the case or the statutory provisions; the order simply echoes the assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and gives no independent findings on the submissions made. He submits that Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax Department Vs Shukla Brothers [2010 (254) ELT 6 (S.C.) held that a litigant has a legitimate expectation of knowing reasons for rejection of his claim/prayer; it is then alone, that a party would be in a position to challenge the order on appropriate grounds. He submits that held in Vadilal Gases Ltd Vs Union of India 2016 (332) ELT 625 (Guj) the reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9, 23750 numbers were imported vide impugned B/s; therefore, both the imports cannot be treated as identical for purpose of assessment under Rule 4 of CVR, 2007. 5. Learned counsel submits further that Hon ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt. Ltd 2019 (365) ELT 3 (SC), held that the rejection of the transaction value can only be for the cogent reasons arrived at by undertaking exercise as to on what basis of which it can be held that the price paid is not the sole consideration of transaction value. He submits that this judgment was referred and relied upon in the case of Century Metal Recycling Pvt Ltd 2019 (367) ELT 3 (SC), wherein it was ,held that transaction value of imported goods can be rejected in terms of Rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 if the proper has doubt about its truth or accuracy; before rejecting the transaction value the importer must be asked to justify said value by submitting requisite information/documents; if the proper officer is satisfied with importer s explanation, transaction value must be accepted forthwith; if doubt persists due to certain reasons as mentioned i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of value under Rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007; the another imported goods being not identical and not in comparable quantity, valuation under Rule 4 of CVR, 2007 is not legally sustainable. 8. We find that the department has not given any cogent reasons for rejection of the declared value, except stating that the appellants have imported identical goods in the past at a higher price. Nothing is forthcoming in the impugned orders as to how they constitute identical goods except for the description. We find force in the contention of the appellants that the description IC is a generic one. We find that the department has not obtained any technical opinion on the impugned goods so as to examine the identical nature of the products. Department has not even alleged that there was flow of extra consideration, than the declared value, form the appellant to the overseas supplier, leave alone any evidence to that effect. Moreover, we find force in the argument of the appellants that the quantity imported is not comparable. Department is attempting to compare the value at which 23750 Nos of ICs were imported, with the value at which a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
