9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Officer, which price was acceptable to JSB Aluminium - The Assessing Officer was, therefore, not required to give reasons for rejection of the transaction value and determination of the assessable value. 10. It is well settled that what is admitted is not required to be proved by the department. This issue has been settled by the Supreme Court in Systems Components [ 2004 (2) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT ] where it was held that ' Once it is an admitted position by the party itself, that these are parts of a Chilling Plant and the concerned party does not even dispute that they have no independent use there is no need for the Department to prove the same. It is a basic and settled law that what is admitted need not be proved.' The decision of the Supreme Court in Eicher Tractors [ 2000 (11) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT ] on which reliance has been placed by the Commissioner (Appeals) to hold that the transaction value cannot be rejected without clear and cogent evidence, would not be applicable to the facts of the case. Thus, for the reasons recorded in this order, and the reasons recorded by the Bench in Century Metal for setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer in respect of one such Bill of Lading No. OOLU4048611590 dated 24.09.2019: JSB ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LIMITED Dated : 25/10/19 To, The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, ICD CONCOR KANAKPURA JAIPUR Subject: Enhancement of value of goods covered under Invoice No. AU2000624-SG DT. 24.09.2019 BL No. OOLU4048611590 DT. 24.09.2019 As per valuation rules of assessment under the customs Act 1962 Proposing re determination of value and consequential reassessment of duty, in this regard it is submitted that we have been informed about grounds or rejection of our declared value under the provisions of Rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) rules, 2017 read with Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962. We have also gone through and understood the details of contemporaneous imports of similar/identical goods, as informed by the Customs Department and we accept that the value declared by us is lower than the value at which identical/similar goods have been imported at or about the same time in comparable quantities and in comparable commercial transaction were assessed at other ports of the country. We fully agree that the value of goods declared by us in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected with any basis and reason. Neither allegation of any sort has been made nor any evidence of contemporaneous import has been adduced to assail the transaction value. The assessing authority has indicated no reason or the rejection of the transaction value or enhancement of value. ***** 5.2 The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Eicher Tractors Ltd. (2000 (122) E.L.T. 321), have settled the law that transaction value cannot be rejected without clear and cogent evidence produced by the Department with regard to the quantity, quality, country of origin and place and time of import. It is also well-settled that it is for the Department to produce the evidence to show that the transaction value is not acceptable in view of the comparable price. In these cases, the Department has not adduced even an iota evidence to reject the transaction value on the ground that it is not the true commercial value of the goods. It is also not the case of the Department that there was any special relationship between the importer and the supplier and that the former has paid anything extra over and above the transacted value. In fact, contrary to Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, the goods were also cleared by the importers on payment of duty on the enhanced value after the out of charge order was passed; (ii) The out of charge was given only after the importers had deposited the differential customs duty on the enhanced value and all the appeals were filed by the importers before the Commissioner (Appeals) after the out of charge order was given. It was, therefore, not open to JSB Aluminium to challenge the assessed value of goods determined on the basis of the consent given by them by filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals); (iii) What is admitted need not be proved. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of C. Ex., Madras vs. Systems Components Pvt. Ltd. 2004 (165) ELT 136 (SC) ; (iv) Principles of natural justice have not been violated as the importers themselves stated that they accepted the value proposed by the department and this statement in the letters addressed to the Assistant Commissioner has not been retracted. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Tribunal in DJP International vs. Commissioner of Customs (ICD), New Delhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch identical/similar goods had been imported at or about the same time in comparable quantities and in comparable commercial transactions and so the value declared by it in the Bills of Entry should be rejected under rule 12 of the 2007 Valuation Rules and re-determined under rule 9 on the price made known to it by the Assessing Officer, which price was acceptable to JSB Aluminium. JSB Aluminium also specifically stated that because of the acceptance of the enhanced value, it did not want any personal hearing to be provided or a speaking order to be passed and that the value should be re-determined in accordance with the value as proposed by the Assessing Officer, and accepted by it. The Assessing Officer was, therefore, not required to give reasons for rejection of the transaction value and determination of the assessable value. 10. It is well settled that what is admitted is not required to be proved by the department. This issue has been settled by the Supreme Court in Systems Components and the relevant portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court is reproduced below: 5. The Appeal filed by the Department has been disposed of by the Tribunal by holding that the Department has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.2019 31.10.2019 2. 5439099 25.10.2019 25.10.2019 31.10.2019 3. 5450703 26.10.2019 26.10.2019 01.11.2019 4. 5450769 26.10.2019 26.10.2019 02.11.2019 5. 5450815 26.10.2019 26.10.2019 02.11.2019 6. 5473410 29.10.2019 29.10.2019 31.10.2019 7. 5527000 02.11.2019 02.11.2019 07.11.2019 8. 5560782 05.11.2019 05.11.2019 13.11.2019 9. 5644728 12.11.2019 12.11.2019 16.11.2019 10. 5659100 13.11.2019 13.11.2019 22.11.2019 11. 5659860 13.11.2019 13.11.2019 18.11.2019 12. 5725778 18.11.2019 18.11.2019 21.11.2019 13. 5726230 18.11.2019 18.11.2019 21.11.2019 14. 5755998 20.11.2019 20.11.2019 22.11.2019 15. 5756417 20.11.2019 20.11.2019 22.11.2019 16. 5790096 22.11.2019 22.11.2019 28.11.2019 17. 5790870 22.11.2019 22.11.2019 28.11.2019 14. Thus, for the reasons recorded in this order, and the reasons recorded by the Bench in Century Metal for setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the present impugned order dated 26.11.2020 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the 17 appeals deserves to be set aside and is set aside. All the 17 appeals filed by the department are, accordingly, allowed and the enhancement in the value of the imported goods by the Assessing Officer i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
