9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1090X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere provisional and ample time was available for appropriate inquiry into facts to be incorporated in the notice preceding finalization of assessment. The situation obtaining in proviso to rule 3(2) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 has not retained that special consideration for being resorted to in consignments imported after 10th October 2007. The rejection of declared value is, thus, without authority of law. Turning to the adoption of prices from Public Ledger , a survey of the several alternatives in Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 and of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 do not admit to such option. Rule 8 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 and rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, titled as the residual method , envisages determination using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of the Rules and is further qualified by restriction on adoption of a value on the basis of, inter alia, price of goods for export to country other than In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 68,57,922 [order-in-appeal no.182/MCH/AC/GR.I/2012 dated 5th March 2013] and of ₹ 1,24,56,230 [order-in-appeal no.173/MCH/AC/GR.I/2012 dated 1st March 2013] and ₹ 1,21,35,537 [order-in-appeal no.174/MCH/AC/GR.I/2012 dated 1st March 2013] respectively in two cases each of M/s Ajay Exports and M/s Radheyshyam Ratanlal, ₹ 35,41,389 [order-in-appeal no.175/MCH/AC/GR.I/2012 dated 5th March 2013] on M/s Arushi Exports and ₹ 33,72,390 [order-in-appeal no. 309/MCH/AC/GR.I/2012 dated 10th May 2013] on M/s Tradex India Corporation Pvt Ltd. 3. It would appear that the four appellants had entered into four separate contracts, all dated 2nd April 2007, with different suppliers in Turkey for import of 510 MTs each of the said goods at US $ 1,700/- PMT. The goods, entered against seven bills of entry filed between June 2007 and December 2007, one bill of June 2007, two bills of June 2007 and four bills between June 2007 and November 2007 by M/s Radheyshyam Ratanlal, M/s Arushi Exports, M/s Tradex India Corporation Pvt Ltd and M/s Ajay Exports respectively, were provisionally assessed and, as a prelude to finalization, show cause notices came to be is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity of the contracted price was no longer just a desirable prescription but, save in circumstances provided in the Rules, an inevitability thus aligning the statutory provisions with the Agreement on Customs Valuation (ACV) in entirety. 6. Earlier, by amending rule 3 with effect from 7th September 2001 and incorporating further qualifications for acceptance of contracted price as transaction value of imported goods, rule 10A of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 acquired teeth for subjecting declared values to the test of conformity by placing importer on notice that responsibility for establishing acceptability was now shifted and, thereby, disengaging the assessment process from the rigour of compliance with the four conditions, then existing in proviso to rule 4(2) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988, as directed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Eicher Tractors Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC)] at least till the new Rules came into force. 7. According to Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, no evidence has been adduced by customs authorities to demo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. It was argued that the Tribunal had, in Commissioner of Customs (General CFS) v. Radhey Shyam Ratanlal [2017 (358) ELT 965 (Tri. - Mumbai)], held that enhancement of value without undertaking detailed deliberations for rejection of declared value is improper. Further reliance was placed on the decision in Radha V Company v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2003 (156) ELT 810 (Tri. - Mumbai)], in Kanhaiyalal Co v. Commissioner of Customs, Pune [2004 (163) ELT 33 (Tri. - Mumbai)] and in Dhirish International v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore [2005 (187) ELT 94 (Tri. - Bang)]. It was further contended that reliance placed upon the decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin v. Rabbani Exports [2011 (271) ELT 533 (Tri. - Chennai)] was misdirected as also that on decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Ratanlal v. Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai [2009 (238) ELT 14 (SC)]. It was also further argued that prices in Public Ledger are of goods of 99.99% purity and hence not acceptable for comparison. 10. Per contra, it is the submission of Learned Authorized Representativ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only substantially expanded to overcome the rigid framework of the existing conditions but also were couched generally enough to preclude similar judicial intervention henceforth; however, the principle of reasonable cause espoused in re Eicher Tractors Ltd may be discarded only at the cost of conferment of limitless empowerment, and more particularly from the unabashed resort to residual method of valuation insensible to the obligation of justifying discard of the preceding modes definitively, on customs authorities tasked with valuation of imported goods. Hence the enunciation in re Eicher Tractors Ltd that, unlike Customs Valuation Rules, 1963, in the successor Rules Both Sections 14(1) and Rule 4 provide that the price paid by an importer to the vendor in the ordinary course of commerce shall be taken to be the value in the absence of any of the special circumstances indicated in Section 14(1) and particularized in rule 4(2). Rule 4(1) speaks of the transaction value. Utilization 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 cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ization of assessment. The situation obtaining in proviso to rule 3(2) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 has not retained that special consideration for being resorted to in consignments imported after 10th October 2007. The rejection of declared value is, thus, without authority of law. 14. Turning to the adoption of prices from Public Ledger , a survey of the several alternatives in Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 and of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 do not admit to such option. Rule 8 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 and rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, titled as the residual method , envisages determination using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of the Rules and is further qualified by restriction on adoption of a value on the basis of, inter alia, price of goods for export to country other than India which the Public Ledger makes no pretence of not being. In re Kanhaiyalal Co, it has been held 6. After hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall be determined by proceeding sequentially through Rules 5 to 8 as prescribed under Clause (ii) of Rule 3. Rule 8 is the residuary provision under this scheme. Rule 9 provides for certain additions to the price actually paid or payable, to arrive at the assessable value. Rule 10 casts an obligation on the importer to declare the details of the value of the goods accurately as also to furnish such document or information as may be required by the proper officer for determination of the assessable value The above rule is a rule of procedure, which enables the proper officer to decide as to whether he can accept the declared value of the goods under Rule 4(1) or should proceed sequentially through Rules 5 to 8 for arriving at the value of the goods. If, even after considering the information documents/evidence furnished by the importer, the proper officer has reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the declared value, it shall be deemed that the value of the goods cannot be determined under Rule 4(1). This deeming provision contained in Rule 10A has necessarily to be pressed into service at the very initial stage under the sequential scheme. It has no role after th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
