9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NIDB. This contention must be accepted because the NIDB is data base of the Customs department and it is not open for public to see. All that is required from the importer in the bill of entry is to declare his transaction value truly and accurately. If there is any relationship between the buyer and the seller or if there is any additional consideration for sale they also have to be declared. In this case, there is no allegation that there was any additional consideration for sale or that the buyer and seller were related. Therefore, there was no lapse on the part of the respondent in his declaration. Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules provides for proper officer to reject the transaction value and it requires two steps. On receiving additional information or if no such information is provided by the importer, the proper officer still has reasonable doubt regarding the truth and accuracy of the transaction value, he can reject it under Rule 12 and re-determine the value under Rules 4 to 9 in that order. Rule 4 deals with transaction values of identical goods and Rule 5 deals with transaction value of similar goods - the importer has no means of knowing at what prices other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctric motors declared in these bills of entry with the values of electric motors in the National Import Data Base NIDB . This comparison was done based on values of similar goods cleared at Nhava Sheva port by other importers during the same period and the goods were of the same country of origin. The officers summoned Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain, proprietor, recorded his statements, visited his premises and after completing the investigation, issued a Show Cause Notice SCN dated 09.05.2014 proposing to reject the declared assessable value of Rs. 33,99,653/- in the five bills of entry under Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules and re-determine it as Rs. 1,33,85,898/- and recover differential duty of Rs. 23,86,213/- under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 invoking the extended period of limitation. It was also proposed to demand interest and impose penalties upon the respondent. Adjudicating upon the SCN, the Joint Commissioner passed the OIO, the operative part of which is as follows: (i) I hereby reject the declared value of Rs. 33,99,653/- vide aforesaid Bills of Entry as per Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (determination of the value of imported goods) Rules 2007 and orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the five bills of entry were assessed and the goods were cleared on payment of duty. In the OIO the declared and assessed values have been rejected on the basis of NIDB data of contemporaneous imports of similar goods as shown in the Annexure-A to the show cause notice. He observed that Annexure-A did not contain crucial detail such as quantity, quality, manufacturer details, technical specifications etc. to establish that the goods were similar to those imported by the respondent. Further, he found that on perusal of Annexure-B to the show cause notice there was a difference between the description of the goods and the description of the goods in contemporaneous bills of entry. He observed that the adjudicating authority relied strongly on the confession of the appellant proprietor to conclude that there was undervaluation and value needs to be re-determined as admission in the confessional statement. However, he observed that the NIDB data itself is not enough to reject the transaction value under Rule 12 and re-determine the value under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules. Therefore, he observed that re-determination of value on the basis of NIDB data was not proper and lega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be proved. Reliance is placed on Naresh J. Sukhanami Vs. Union of India 1996 (83) ELT 258 to assert that the statement made before the officer of Customs is admissible as evidence because the Customs officer are not police officers. Reliance is placed on Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/s Hanuman Prasad Sons decided by this Tribunal in Final Order No. 51584-51619/2020 to assert that if the importer had accepted the assessable value and requested that no show cause notice may be issued or personal hearing granted to them, it cannot, thereafter, contest the re-determination of value. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order may be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the findings in the impugned order and deserves it calls for no interference. 9. We have considered the submissions on both sides and perused the records. 10. We find that the goods were initially imported under five bills of entry between 23.06.2010 and 19.01.2011. They were assessed by the proper officer and the goods were cleared after payment of duty. During hearing, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in respect of the three of the bills of entry the assessing off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al or similar and at various customs locations across the country. Only Customs officers have access to this information. 11. Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain, proprietor of the respondent had correctly stated that he has no means of knowing the NIDB values. It needs to be pointed out that the transaction value can be rejected only if there is a reasonable doubt regarding its truth and accuracy. There is nothing in the rule which mandates that the transaction value has to be the same as the transaction values of other importers at various locations. While Rule 12 allows the officers to use the vast difference in prices as the starting point for raising the doubts, nothing in this rule or in Section 14 mandates that the transaction value has to be as per the prices at which others imported goods during the relevant period. Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain further said that if any differential duty is payable, that he would pay. It does not amount to saying that he had not declared the transaction value truthfully or accurately. Therefore, the undue reliance placed by the adjudicating authority on the statement of Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain is not correct as correctly observed by the Commissioner (Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
