9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without assigning any reason and without taking consent in writing from aggrieved appellants. Further while agreeing with the re-assessment done by the proper officer, Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the proper officer had not passed any order indicating as to why the NIDB data should be accepted by the party and which one in particular and why transaction value was rejectable. The reliance on the decision of UNITED COPIER SYSTEMS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, DELHI-III [ 2009 (7) TMI 973 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] and RAKESH KUMAR AGARWAL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, TUTICORIN [ 2008 (7) TMI 738 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] by the appellants has been correctly placed in which it has been properly laid down that without putting before the party, the NIDB data for rebuttal and without bringing cogent evidence and reasons, transaction value cannot be rejected. It has been properly appreciated and relied upon by the original authority. Further we find that the adjudicating authority has also correctly pointed out that the misdeclaration can also be the basis for rejection of transaction value, but the same is absent in the instant case. Further, there are forc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against such re-assessment orders and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) while passing following Order-in-Appeals remanded back the matters to the Assistant Commissioner for passing speaking order: Sr.No. Name of the appellant Order-in-Appeal Nos. date 01 M/s. Tha Tulsidas Ramji MUN-CUSTM-000-APP-417 to 445-17-18 dated 01.03.2018 in 26 Bills of Entry/Assessment Orders stated therein 02 M/s. H. R. Sons MUN-CUSTM-000-APP-382 to 416-17-18 dated 28.02.2018 in 35 Bills of Entry/Assessment Orders stated therein 03 M/s. Mahendra Kumar Brothers MUN-CUSTM-000-APP-034 to 060-18-19 dated 04.05.2018 in 9 Bills of Entry/Assessment Orders stated therein 04 M/s. Kamlesh Traders MUN-CUSTM-000-APP-034 to 060-18-19 dated 04.05.2018 in 9 Bills of Entry/Assessment Orders stated therein 05 M/s. Vasani Cold Chain Pvt. Ltd. MUN-CUSTM-0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 to 166-20-21 dated 23.02.2021 in aforesaid OIO 04 M/s. Kamlesh Traders MUN-CUSTM-000-APP-163 to 166-20-21 dated 23.02.2021 in aforesaid OIO 05 M/s. Vasani Cold Chain Pvt. Ltd. MUN-CUSTM-000-APP-163 to 166-20-21 dated 23.02.2021 in aforesaid OIO 06 M/s. Pooja Money MUN-CUSTM-000-APP-163 to 166-20-21 dated 23.02.2021 in aforesaid OIO 6. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) while passing impugned Orders accepted the submissions made by the Principal Commissioner, Customs, Mundra by accepting the same and allowing the appeals of the department. The parties aggrieved by the above orders have preferred the present appeal. 6.1 The appellant during hearing and in grounds submitted as follows:-That the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is cryptic and he has not given any specific orders of assessment of Bills of Entry. The Principal Commissioner had inter alia claimed relief in the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside impugned Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner in de-novo proceedings may be upheld. 7.2 Appellants also submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to understand the relevant provisions of law while accepting the department‟s appeal. As per Section 14 of the Act read with Rule 4(1) of the Rules, the value of the imported goods shall be transaction value, that is to say, the price actually paid when sold for export to India is required to be taken for the purpose of levy of duty of customs. As per the above referred provisions the assessing officer is required to assess duty by taking the invoice value. 7.3 Appellants further submit that even Rule 4(1) ibid also clearly provides that subject to the provisions of Rule 3, the value of imported goods shall be transaction value of identical goods imported at or about the same time as the goods being valued. Rule 4 ibid is starting with the words subject to the provisions of Rule 3 of these rules it means Rule 3 has overriding effect over the provisions of Rule 4. Accordingly, provisions of Rule 3 will prevail over the provisions of Rule 4 in case of conflict between the two provisions. When transaction value as per Rule 3(1) is availab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 158 (Tri. - Mumbai) The appeal against the above judgment was dismissed by the Hon‟ble Apex court as reported - Commissioner v. Jai Bhagwati Impex Pvt. Ltd. - 2002 (146) E.L.T. A313. ANDHRA SUGARS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, VISAKHAPATNAM - 2006 (193) E.L.T. 68 (Tri. - Bang.) P.V. UKKRU INTERNATIONAL TRADE Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN - 2005 (187) E.L.T. 489 (Tri. - Bang.) COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI Versus COMPETENT BUSINESS MACHINES - 2007 (211) E.L.T. 546 (Tri. - Chennai) 7.9 Appellants further submit that Rule 12 of the said Rules permits the assessing officer to reject declared value. Rule 12 inter alia broadly clarifies at Explanation (1) (iii) (a) to (e) circumstances in which the assessing officer can raise doubts on truth or accuracy of the declared value. Out of the same, the order has discussed Explanation (1) (iii) (a) in the impugned appeal and reproduced Rule 12 However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the said Rule does not empower the assessing officer to reject declared true transaction value on whims and fancies and that reason to doubt‟ does not mean reason to suspe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise specified in the said Rule 4 and without putting to the proper notice to the Appellant. These submissions are not discussed or distinguished in the impugned order and therefore, amongst other, the Appellant referred and relied upon following decisions: COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR Vs. ASIA PACIFIC DISTRIBUTORS-2012 (286) E.L.T. 720 (Tri. - Del.) AGARWAL MARBLES INDIA (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, JAIPUR - 2017 (350) E.L.T. 262 (Tri. - Del.) MARVEL AGENCIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI - 2017 (348) E.L.T. 534 (Tri. - Del.) VENTURE IMPEX PVT. LTD. Versus C.C. (IMPORT GENERAL), NEW DELHI - 2016 (338) E.L.T. 759 (Tri. - Del.) SEDNA IMPEX INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, FARIDABAD - 2017 (347) E.L.T. 317 (Tri. - Chan.) 7.13 Appellants further submitted that harmonious reading of the above judgments makes it clear that declared transaction value cannot be rejected merely based on NIDB data of similar/ identical goods without any cogent reasons duly supported by evidence. The learned adjudicating authority in impugned order has rightly pointed out at para 15 in the impugned order that If the Proper Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the decision of United Copier systems reported in 2009 (247) ELT 761 (Tri.-Del.) and Rakesh Kumar Agarwal reported in 2009 (234) ELT 132 (Tri.-Chennai) by the appellants has been correctly placed in which it has been properly laid down that without putting before the party, the NIDB data for rebuttal and without bringing cogent evidence and reasons, transaction value cannot be rejected. It has been properly appreciated and relied upon by the original authority. Further we find that the adjudicating authority has also correctly pointed out that the misdeclaration can also be the basis for rejection of transaction value, but the same is absent in the instant case. Further, we also find force in various cases law cited by the appellants as well as relied upon by the original authority that sanctity cannot alone be placed on NIDB data for rejecting invoice value. We, therefore, find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has hastily and without proper discussion set aside the order of adjudicating authority through his cryptic reasoning. We, therefore, hold that rejection of transaction value even when based upon NIDB data cannot be done without disclosing materials, as well as identical na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
