9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07 (CVR) without furnishing details of contemporaneous imports for similar goods assessed at higher values. In those cases also values declared were in a range including the appellant's value. As per Section 14 of the Customs Act ,'62 effective from 10-10-2007, subject to valuation rules, assessable value of imported goods shall be the transaction value, namely the price paid or payable for the consignment for delivery at the time and place of importation, provided that the importer and the supplier are not related and no extraneous consideration had influenced the price. Revenue had no case that the importer had remitted any consideration in excess of what was declared. Rule 12 could not be invoked as a previous import of Pushpanjali in January '08 of identical goods weighing 6221 Kgs had been assessed @US$21.6. The sole ground for enhancing the value has not been imports at higher values but the fact that declared value of some contemporaneous imports had been enhanced in adjudication which were higher than US$21.30. The CVR did not provide for enhancement of value in such circumstances, especially after the amendment to Section 14 of the Act in 2007. The payment for the import h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eclared value was depressed for noncommercial reasons for which the same was not acceptable. Pushpanjali was a regular exporter of finished silk and had established a rapport with its supplier which enabled it get raw silk at competitive prices. As the law provided for accepting transaction value, the authorities should follow the law and accept the declared value for assessment. 5. The appellant had cited the following case law in support of their case against rejection of transaction value and its enhancement: (a) CC, Mumbai v. J.D. Orgochem Ltd. - 2008 (226) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) (b) CC, Hyderabad v. SPK Electricals - 2008 (224) E.L.T. 563 (Tri.-Bang.) (c) Oswal Fats & Oils v. CC, Amritsar - 2007 (220) E.L.T. 795 (Tri.-Del.) (d) Rashesh & Co. v. CC, Mumbai - 2008 (227) E.L.T. 573 (Tri.-Mum). 6. The ld SDR submits that Rule 12 of the CVR provided for the proper officer to ask the importer for explanation in cases of imports at significantly lower prices compared to the generality of imports of identical/similar goods at or about the time of import under assessment. The contemporaneous price adopted was the lowest of several such imports. Also, contrary to the submission by the ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prices at which such goods are imported contemporaneously. There is no finding that the transaction value was under declared. 7.1 We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) had observed in the impugned order that the contemporaneous imports compared had been assessed at enhanced values. ("He submitted that all the six contemporaneous Bs/E were assessed based on the enhanced value and the said enhancement was accepted by the respective importers"). It means that the values compared to raise the transaction value of the subject import were not transaction value declared in all these cases. It is likely that these values are still in dispute or accepted for payment of duty under protest. It was too early for the AO to say that the enhancement had become final. The values considered as values of contemporaneous imports are arrived at like the enhanced value in the subject case; i.e., the one being disputed by the importer. We find that in such circumstances the range of lower prices could not have been raised in the absence of genuine higher transaction values at which contemporaneous imports took place. The lower prices would appear to represent the value of contemporaneous imports and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill of entry is presented under Section 46, or a shipping bill of export, as the case may be, is presented under Section 50. There is no finding that the declared value is not the transaction value envisaged in this Section. Rule 12 of CVR reads as follows: 12. Rejection of declared value. - (1) When the proper officer has reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to any imported goods, he may ask the importer of such goods to furnish further information including documents or other evidence and if, after receiving such further information, or in the absence of a response of such importer, the proper officer still has reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the value so declared, it shall be deemed that the transaction value of such imported goods cannot be determined under the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3. (2) At the request of an importer, the proper officer, shall intimate the importer in writing the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to goods imported by such importer and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, before taking a final decision under sub-rule (1). Explanation.- (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal in the case of Mark Auto Industries Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi - 2003 (162) E.L.T. 261 and Devika Trading Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai - 2004 (167) E.L.T. 75. Since the only basis for rejecting the transaction value is the noticing of contemporaneous imports at higher prices, the transaction value was required to be accepted, and we, therefore, set aside the impugned order of rejection of transaction value and loading of value, and allow the appeal." 8. We find that the concept of transaction value did not undergo any essential change by enactment of the new Section 14 of the Act and CVR on 10-10-2007. Earlier, transaction value within a reasonable range on either side of the contemporaneous price in the international trade was acceptable as assessable value. Then also no price arrived at by negotiations in the course of trade on commercial basis could be rejected as transaction value. This position continues even after 10-10-07. The shift from a deemed normal price in the international trade for valuation of imported goods in the Section 14 to the transaction value has not resulted in arty change in practice. Therefore the ratio of the case law in 2008 (227) E.L.T. (573) (Tri.-Mum.) i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction value. Therefore, before rejecting the transaction value as incorrect or unacceptable, the Department has to find out whether there are any imports of identical goods or similar goods at a higher price at around the same time. Unless the evidence is gathered in that regard, the question of importing Section 14(1A) does not arise. In the absence of such evidence, invoice price has to be accepted as the transaction value. Invoice is the evidence of value. Casting suspicion on invoice produced by the importer is not sufficient to reject it as evidence of value of imported goods. Under-valuation has to be proved. If the charge of under-valuation cannot be supported either by evidence or information about comparable imports, the benefit of doubt must go to the importer. If the Department wants to allege under-valuation, it must make detailed inquiries, collect material and also adequate evidence." The above judgment affirmed the reading of the Tribunal in Rashesh & Co. v. CC, Mumbai (supra). It was also observed that the evidence of contemporaneous imports from the same supplier produced by the importer had to be followed in the absence of contemporaneous evidence to reject the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
