9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... THAT:- The proper officer doubted the truth or accuracy of the value declared by the importers for the reason that contemporaneous data had a significantly higher value. It was open to the importers to require the proper officer to intimate the grounds in writing for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared by them and seek a reasonable opportunity of being heard, but they did not do so. On the other hand, the importers submitted in writing that though they had declared the value of the imported goods at Rs. 48.65 per kg., but on being shown contemporaneous data, they agreed that the value of the goods should be enhanced to Rs. 75/- per kg. The importers also specifically stated that they did not want to avail of the right conferred on them under section 124 of the Customs Act and, therefore, they did not want any show cause notice to be issued to them or personal hearing to be provided to them. The importers also specifically stated that they did not want a speaking order to be passed on the Bills of Entry. It needs to be noted that section 124 of the Customs Act provides for issuance of a show cause notice and personal hearing, and section 17(5) of the Customs Act re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order. Appellant is, however, justified in contending that the Additional Commissioner could not have confiscated the goods or imposed redemption fine and penalty also. Thus, the confirmation of this finding by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified. Thus, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the rejection of the declared value and requiring the appellant to pay the differential duty is upheld. However, that part of the order confirming confiscation of the imported goods with option to redeem on payment of redemption fine and imposition of penalty of Rs. 90,000/- is set aside. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed partly. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... undertaking contained in the letter dated 26.09.2018 submitted by M/s Rays Engineering Works and similar undertakings given by the other two appellants, the Additional Commissioner rejected the declared value and re-determined it on the value indicated by the appellants. A direction was, accordingly, given for payment of differential duty with penalty. The Additional Commissioner also ordered that the goods would be liable for confiscation under section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 [the Customs Act] but they could be redeemed on payment of redemption fine. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals), by order dated 01.12.2021, dismissed all these appeals. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is reproduced below: "5.2 I note that in all the three cases, there is written admittance of enhancement of value after the NIDB data were shown to them regarding higher values of identical/similar goods as per contemporaneous data. The appellants had duly admitted the enhanced values. Further, they had voluntarily relinquished their rights of SCN and PH. 5.3. In view of the said c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, however, supported the impugned order and submitted that it does not call for any interference in these appeals. Learned authorised representative submitted that the appellants had voluntarily accepted the value of the goods proposed on the basis of NIDB data and, therefore, there was no requirement for the department to produce any evidence. Learned authorised representative also placed reliance on the statements made by the appellants in their communication to the Deputy Commissioner in which they not only accepted the value of the goods proposed by the department but also categorically stated that they did not want show cause notices to be issued or personal hearings to be granted or speaking orders to be passed. 7. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorised representative appearing for the department have been considered. 8. What transpires from the records is that the appellant declared the value of the goods in the Bills of Entry to be Rs. 48.65 per kg. 9. Section 14 of the Customs Act deals with 'Valuation of Goods' and is reproduced below: "Section 14. Valuation of goods. -- (1) For the purposes of the Customs Tari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubt that the declared value does not represent the transaction value; where the declared value is rejected, the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially in accordance with rules 4 to 9. (ii) The declared value shall be accepted where the proper officer is satisfied about the truth and accuracy of the declared value after the said enquiry in consultation with the importers. (iii) The proper officer shall have the powers to raise doubts on the truth or accuracy of the declared value based on certain reasons which may include - (a) the significantly higher value at which identical or similar goods imported at or about the same time in comparable quantities in a comparable commercial transaction were assessed; (b) the sale involves an abnormal discount or abnormal reduction from the ordinary competitive price; (c) the sale involves special discounts limited to exclusive agents; (d) the misdeclaration of goods in parameters such as description, quality, quantity, country of origin, year of manufacture or production; (e) the non declaration of parameters such as brand, grade, specifications that have relevance to value; (f) the fraudulent or manipulated docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appropriate selection criteria. (3) For the purposes of verification under subsection (2), the proper officer may require the importer, exporter or any other person to produce any document or information, whereby the duty leviable on the imported goods or export goods, as the case may be, can be ascertained and thereupon, the importer, exporter or such other person shall produce such document or furnish such information. (4) Where it is found on verification, examination or testing of the goods or otherwise that the self-assessment is not done correctly, the proper officer may, without prejudice to any other action which may be taken under this Act, re-assess the duty leviable on such goods. (5) Where any re-assessment done under subsection (4) is contrary to the self-assessment done by the importer or exporter and in cases other than those where the importer or exporter, as the case may be, confirms his acceptance of the said re-assessment in writing, the proper officer shall pass a speaking order on the re-assessment, within fifteen days from the date of re-assessment of the bill of entry or the shipping bill, as the case may be." 14. It would be seen that though in a case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bills of Entry, except in a case where the importer/exporter confirms the acceptance in writing. 18. It is no doubt true that the value of the imported goods shall be the transaction value of such goods when the buyer and the seller of goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration, but this is subject to such conditions as may be specified in the rules to be made in this behalf. The Valuation Rules have been framed. A perusal of rule 12(1) indicates that when the proper officer has reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the value of the imported goods, he may ask the importer to furnish further information. Rule 12(2) stipulates that it is only if an importer makes a request that the proper officer shall, before taking a final decision, intimate the importer in writing the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard. To remove all doubts, Explanation 1(iii)(a) provides that the proper officer can have doubts regarding the truth or accuracy of the declared value if the goods of a comparable nature were assessed at a significantly higher value at about the same time. 19. This issue was exami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
