9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder to invoke such a provision it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to give reasons as to why the transaction value declared in the Bills of Entry was being rejected; to establish that the price is not the sole consideration; and to give the reasons supported by material on the basis of which the Assessing Officer arrives at his own assessable value. In COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA VERSUS SOUTH INDIA TELEVISION (P) LTD. [ 2007 (7) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT] , the Court explained as to how the value is derived from the price and under what circumstances the deemed value mentioned in Section 14(1) can be departed with and held that Once the Department discharges the burden of proof to the above extent by producing evidence of contemporaneous imports at higher price, the onus shifts to the importer to establish that the invoice relied on by him is valid. Therefore, the charge of under-invoicing has to be supported by evidence of prices of contemporaneous imports of like goods. It is found that the Assessing Officer was having a valid and enough evidence for rejection of the transaction value as declared by the appellant in their bill of entry by resorting to Rule 3 (4) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods stored in the Customs Bonded Warehouse under Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1952 to avoid incurring of demurrage and detention charges of the container. 3. On the basis of authorization dated 21.04.2016 (RUD-3) issued by Sh. Sumit Aggarwal proprietor of M/s Shree Shyam Enterprises, Sh. Sanjeev Garg, Authorised Representative, R/o. 214, Arunodya Apts. F-Block, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018 appeared on 22.04.2016 (RUD-4) and rendered his statement of Shri Sanjeev Garg, Authorised Representative of appellant was recorded under section 108 of Customs Act 1962 wherein, he, inter-alia, stated that Shri Sumit Agarwal, his cousin who had obtained an IEC in the name of importing firm has allowed him to import Diaphragm Boost Pump from Shunde Light Industrial Products Imp. Exp. Company Ltd. of Guangdong, China in the month of January 16, that he had imported another consignment in the month of March 16. Earlier two consignments and present consignment were all of 9400 pcs each of Diaphragm Boost Pump E-Chen (EC-103-75), with capacity of 75 GDP from the same supplier at the same rate of 3.58 USD CIF per piece; that the description E- Chen (EC-103-75) pertained to Booster Pump with a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were also proposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act 1962 on M/s Shree Shyam Enterprises. Discharge of duty liabilities under Bill of Entry No. 4873621 dated 12/04/2016 should not be appropriated against the said duty demand. 5. The said proposal is confirmed vide Order-in-Original No.05/2018 dated 09.03.2018. 6. Being aggrieved the appellants are before this Tribunal. 7. We have heard Mr. L.B. Yadav and Mr. Mayank Sharma, ld. Counsels and Mr. Nagendra Yadav, Authorised Representative for the appellants. 8. Ld. Counsel for the appellants mentioned that on examination of goods quantity and description were found as per declaration. However, it appeared to department that goods were under-invoiced. Shri Sanjeev Garg was the authorized representative of Appellants, who stated that declared unit price @ 3.58 USD was correct, however, on being shown computer printouts of e-bay-website of the similar goods which showed selling price @ 1799/- per piece and of Alibaba website which showed price of 15-16 USD (FOB) for a quantity of 100 pcs, he under the pressure of increasing detention and demurrage charges, stated that he had no objection if the assessable value was as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce or other incriminating document was recovered. 12. Deductive Value of the goods as determined under Rule 7 of CVR, 2007 without following the provisions as laid therein has also been objected. 13. It is finally submitted that Shri Sanjeev Garg is only an Authorised Representative in the matter. He had rendered statements as per authorization given by proprietor of Appellant. Importer Exporter Code (IEC) was obtained by the proprietor himself. He had no role to play with foreign supplier in negotiation of the value of instant goods. There is no mention in the entire Notice or Order-in-Original that he had any prior knowledge or that he abetted in the alleged act of undervaluation. Order is accordingly prayed to be set aside. 14. To rebut these submissions ld. Departmental Representative has mentioned that Sanjeev Garg had admitted the re-determined value vide three separate statements dated 21.04.2016, 10.05.2016 13.05.2016. None of these statements is ever retracted. In view of said admission no further evidence was required to be produced by department. The appellants vide letter dated 24.04.2017 07.06.2017 have even requested for waiver of Show Cause Notice. They r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to give reasons as to why the transaction value declared in the Bills of Entry was being rejected; to establish that the price is not the sole consideration; and to give the reasons supported by material on the basis of which the Assessing Officer arrives at his own assessable value. 17. In South India Television (P) Ltd., the Court explained as to how the value is derived from the price and under what circumstances the deemed value mentioned in Section 14(1) can be departed with. Discussion in the said judgment is quoted hereunder: Before rejecting the invoice price the Department has to give cogent reasons for such rejection. This is because the invoice price forms the basis of the transaction 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per piece while the declared value of the live consignment as well as of the previously imported consignment was declared U.S. $ 3.58 CIF per piece; (ii) During the investigations the representative of the importing firm have also been confronted with the available price of the import consignment goods at E- bay and Alibaba and Shri Sanjeev Garg, Authorized Representative has voluntarily agreed for value of Rs. 1,799/- per piece (Rs. 794/- per piece as the assessable value after making necessary deductions, accordingly the assessable value has been raised to Rs. 794/- per piece by the Department applying the provisions of Rule 7 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007; (iii) Differential amount of the duty amounting to Rs. 13,59,354/- was deposited by the appellant for their live consignment under TR-6 challan No. 36653 dated 13 May, 2016; (iv) The statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 have never been retracted by the Proprietor and the Authorized Representative of the appellant firm. 20. From the above facts, we find that the Assessing Officer was having a valid and enough evidence for rejection of the transaction value as declared by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pted by the customs authorities. From record, it is seen that such redetermination of value has been carried out in terms of Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules which provides for determination of value on the basis of the price of identical or similar imported goods in India. It is further seen from records, that the proprietor of the appellant, Sh. Jayshiv, was shown the market enquiry report at the time of recording his statement on 8-7-2008. Further, in the statement he has voluntarily accepted the increased valuation of the imported goods. It is settled position of law that once, the importer has admitted the redetermination of value on record and has accepted the method of such valuation, he cannot subsequently challenge the same on the same ground. Consequently, we uphold the redetermination of the value carried out by the customs authorities . The ratio of the above judgment is squarely applicable to the instant case . 21. We also observe that in the present case also there is sufficient admission of the authorized representative of the appellants for the value of contemporaneous import of similar goods shown by the department. We observe that thrice the statem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
