9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mported Goods) Rules, 2007 failing which recourse must be had to rule 3(4) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. The assessment has necessarily to take recourse to rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 on the basis of framework prescribed therein. While certificate of chartered engineer may serve in assisting the assessing officer, it lacks the statutory credibility inhering in application of mind, in accordance with the Rules, by the proper officer. No reason has been assigned by the adjudicating authority for adoption of the value and nor is there any narration of ascertainment of the correctness of the value declared in the certificate obtained after arrival of the vessels - adjustment under rule 10, under the authority of rule 3(1), of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, and in the event of adoption of rule 4 or rule 5 therein for arriving at transaction value, with no reference in rule 7, rule 8 and rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 for such adjustment, precludes lack of authority of law for the addition o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant-company. 2. The facts, briefly, are that a tug towing a barge departed from Singapore to arrive at Kakinada on 17th April 2011 where it was converted for coastal trade and proceeded to different destinations, including Colombo, before arriving at Mumbai on 1st July 2011 whereupon these were diverted to Belapur on 2nd July 2011, where the consequence of show cause notice issued, i.e., re-ascertainment of assessable value of tug Resco-5 to ₹ 3,81,99,831/-, by addition, under rule 10 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, of freight and insurance of ₹ 63,41,871/- and insurance of ₹ 1,48,607/-, and, by rejection of value of ₹ 2,79,37,500/- declared, that of the barge Resco-6 was redetermined, under rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, as ₹ 4,82,03,995/- which was further adjusted for freight and insurance. In addition, both were confiscated under section 111(f) and section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 but permitted to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine, of ₹ 35,00,000/- for the tug and ₹ 45,00,000/- for the barge, under section 125 of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in the capacity of the vessels as conveyance. He submitted that duty liability did not arise, in accordance with section 129 of Finance Act, 2012, on vessels imported into India between 1st March 2011 and 16th March 2012 for which he relied upon the circular no. 16/2012 dated 13th June 2012 of Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC). Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Orissa in Great Eastern Shipping Compnay Ltd v. Union of India [2022 (379) ELT 318 (Ori.)] and of the Tribunal in Hede Ferrominas Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai [2016 (334) ELT 540 (Tri.-Mumbai). He contended that the filing of import general manifest was the responsibility of the personin- charge of the conveyance and not of the importer and that charge for violation of section 30, section 32 and section 34 of Customs Act, 1962 had not been levelled against them. 6. Learned Authorised Representative submitted that the appeals of Revenue should be allowed inasmuch as the value declared in the bill of entry was consequent upon action taken against the vessel when it berthed at Belapur. He contended that the entire purpose of arriving under Indian flag a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be levied on goods, because of the inextricable connection with the goods. 11. Before proceeding to invoke the authority of rule 3(4) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, it is necessary to place the importer on notice of intent to reject the declared value under the authority of rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. It is seen that, insofar as the barge is concerned, the lack of certificate from chartered engineer in support of the declared transaction value and the vessel being old and used was held as sufficing to pull the trigger for rejection of declared value. It would appear that the adjudicating authority did not take into account the exclusion from applicability of rule 3(1) itself owing to the absence of commercial transaction between buyer and seller at the place of importation. 12. In such circumstances, the assessment has necessarily to take recourse to rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 on the basis of framework prescribed therein. While certificate of chartered engineer may serve in assisting the assessing officer, it lac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
