9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and of the same period to hold that the decision which were announced in the similar circumstances will substantively apply in the present matter also. Appeal allowed. - MR. SOMESH ARORA MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. C.L MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri. N D George, Advocates for the Appellant Shri. Anand Kumar, Superintendent (Authorized Representative) for the Respondent ORDER In the instant case importers had imported product described as Ordinary PU belts. The same was declared as invoiced at Rs. 7.48/- per piece. The department placing reliance on NIDB data sought to raise the price to Rs.18.58/-. Further department has also sought to rely on a DGOV Circular F. No. Val/Tech/25/2013 dated 07.08.2013, which suspected under valuation in import of PU belts on trans India basis and indicated a price range of 18.58 to Rs. 22.50/-. Seizure of consignment covered by bill of entry dated 05.02.2015, was also done on 23.02.2015. Department had also done market survey to indicate that similar goods were having market value of Rs. 140 to 180 per piece. The transaction value was rejected by proceeding sequentially under Customs Valuation Rules and the value was determined as per best judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal papers, we find that the goods in all the three appeals i.e. M/s. SRR International, M/s. Liberty Enterprises and M/s. Sumit Enterprises are identical. The facts such as, reliance on contemporaneous imports, market survey, DGOV Circular, identical products were relied upon in all the three cases. It is also observed that the price of the goods declared by all the three parties are more or less same even though minor variation is there. Supplier in all the three cases is also the same party i.e. M/s. Wenzhou Yuanqiao Leather Goods Company Limited, China. We have dealt with identical issue in the case of SRR International and allowed the appeal of the said party vide order dated 04.12.2018 which is reproduced below:- 4. We have carefully gone through the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. We find that the assessable value of the goods i.e. PU Belts is enhanced by the customs authorities mainly on the basis of DGOV Circular, which is not an authority to dispute the valuation of the imported goods. It is necessary that if there is any doubt, an investigation has to be carried out on the basis of material available on record. In the present case, though t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 14(1). The value to be declared in the Bill of Entry is the value referred to above and not merely the invoice price. On a plain reading of Section 14(1) and Section 14(1A), it envisages that the value of any goods chargeable to ad valorem duty has to be deemed price as referred to in Section 14(1). Therefore, determination of such price has to be in accordance with the relevant rules and subject to the provisions of Section 14(1). It is made clear that Section 14(1) and Section 14(1A) are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, the transaction value under Rule 4 must be the price paid or payable on such goods at the time and place of importation in the course of international trade. Section 14 is the deeming provision. It talks of deemed value. The value is deemed to be the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale, for delivery at the time and place of importation in the course of international trade where the seller and the buyer have no interest in the business of each other and the price is the sole consideration for the sale or for offer for sale. Therefore, what has to be seen by the Department is the value or cost of the imported goods at the time of im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is liable to be accepted. The value in the export declaration may be relied upon for ascertainment of the assessable value under the Customs Valuation Rules and not for determining the price at which goods are ordinarily sold at the time and place of importation. This is where the conceptual difference between value and price comes into discussion. 7. Applying the above tests to the facts of the present case, we find that there is no evidence from the side of the Department showing contemporaneous imports at higher price. On the contrary, the respondent importer has relied upon contemporaneous imports from the same supplier, namely, M/s. Pearl Industrial Company, Hong Kong, which indicates comparable prices of like goods during the same period of importation. This evidence has not been rebutted by the Department. Further, in the present case, the Department has relied upon export declaration made by the foreign supplier in Hong Kong. In this connection, we find that letters were addressed by the Department to the Indian Commission which, in turn, requested detailed investigations to be carried out by Hong Kong Customs Department. The Indian Commission has forwarded the export decl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value and payability in respect of the transaction envisaged a situation where payment of price stood deferred. Therefore, this decision of the Supreme Court directs the Revenue to decide the validity of the particular value instead of rejecting the transaction value. We wish, however, to clarify that it is still open to the Department based on evidence, to show that the declared price is not the price at which like goods are sold or offered for sale ordinarily, which words occur in Section 14(1). Lastly, it is important to note that in the above decision of this Court in Eicher Tractors (supra) this Court has held that the Department has to proceed sequentially under Rules 5, 6 onwards and it is not open to the Department to invoke Rule 8 without sequentially complying with Rules 5, 6 and 7 even in cases where the transaction value is to be rejected under Rule 4. In the present case, the show cause notice indicates that the Department had invoked Rule 8 without complying with the earlier rules. 5. On the issue of market enquiry, for the purpose of value of imported goods, this Tribunal in the case of Selection Enterprises vs. CC, Chennai (supra) passed the following order:- 4. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvations we allow the appeal with consequential relief. The above decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court by dismissing the Civil Appeal filed by Commissioner of Customs, Chennai in the case of Topsia Estates Pvt. Limited vs. CC (Import-Seaport), Chennai the Tribunal held that merely on the basis of NIDB data, the declared value cannot be enhanced. As regards the DGOV Circular, on the similar and standing order, issued by a Commissionerate, this Tribunal in the case of Om Drishian International Limited vs. CCE, New Delhi (supra) passed the following order:- 3. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the assessable value of the ball bearings. The lower authorities enhanced the value of the bearings based upon the Circular No. S/26-Misc.-2195/2005 VA, dated 24-9-2008 issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House, Nhava Sheva. Vide the said Circular, the value of different sizes of Chinese ball bearings was mentioned. Inasmuch as the said Circular was issued on the basis of average cost of raw material in the international market as well as on the basis of inputs provided by various importers, associations of manufacturer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
