9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asons exists and justifies detailed investigation.' It is never the case of the Revenue that the parties were related, that there was any extra/on money exchanged between the importer and the exporter or that the value admitted in the bill of entry was influenced by any extraneous considerations/circumstances. Hence, as declared by the Hon ble Apex Court in Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd., it is found that the Revenue has miserably failed in discharging the burden of proving in accordance with law that the declared value was not acceptable for any justifiable reason/s or that the same was hit by the non-fulfillment of Rule 12 ibid. Conclusion - The authorities below have erred in rejecting the declared/transaction value of the import without any basis. Appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR. P. DINESHA , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Ms. Vishnupriya, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Anoop Singh, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per : Shri P. Dinesha The short issue that arises in this Appeal is, Whether the declared transaction value by the importer could be rejected and the Revenue authorities were justified in enhanci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and Shri Anoop Singh, ld. Joint Commissioner, for the Respondent. 4. Brief facts as set out in the earlier paragraphs remain undisputed and hence, we proceeded to analyse the findings in the impugned order vis- -vis the Grounds of Appeal urged before us. The issue in so far as the valuation of imported goods, especially when the importer and the exporter are unrelated, has been dealt-with by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Century Metal Recycling Private Limited Vs Union of India 2019 (367) ELT 3 (SC) as under : 12. Rules 3 and 12 of the 2007 Rules i.e. Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 were enacted and enforced with effect from 10th October, 2007 replacing and superseding the 1988 Rules. Rule 3(1) of the 2007 Rules states that value of the imported goods shall be the transaction value adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10 of the 2007 Rules which Rule, as observed above, deals with the costs and services which are to be added to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods for determining the transaction value. Sub-rule (1) to Rule 3 is however subject to Rule 12 and therefore give primacy to Rule 12 whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the proper officer is not satisfied and has reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the value so declared, it is deemed that the transactional value of such imported goods cannot be determined under the provision of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the 2007 Rules. Clause (iii) of Explanation to Rule 12 states that the proper officer can on certain reasons raise doubts about the truth or accuracy of declared value. Certain reasons would include conditions specified in clauses (a) to (f) i.e. higher value of identical similar goods of comparable quantities in a comparable transaction, abnormal discount or abnormal deduction from ordinary competitive prices, sales involving the special prices, misdeclaration on parameters such as description, quality, quantity, country of origin, year of manufacture or production, non-declaration of parameters such as brand and grade etc. and fraudulent or manipulated documents. Grounds mentioned in (a) to (f) however are not exhaustive of certain reasons to raise doubt about the truth or accuracy of the declared value. Clause (ii) to Explanation states that the declared value shall be accepted where the proper officer is satisfied about the truth a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly decides the transactional value in terms of Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16. Proper officer can therefore reject the declared transactional value based on certain reasons to doubt the truth or accuracy of the declared value in which event the proper officer is entitled to make assessment as per Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. What is meant by the expression grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared has been explained and elucidated in clause (iii) of Explanation appended to Rule 12 which sets out some of the conditions when the reason to doubt exists. The instances mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) are not exhaustive but are inclusive for there could be other instances when the proper officer could reasonably doubt the accuracy or truth of the value declared. 17. The choice of words deployed in Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules are significant and of much consequence. The Legislature, we must agree, has not used the expression reason to believe or satisfaction or such other positive terms as a pre-condition on the part of the proper officer. The expression reason to believe which would have required the proper officer to refer to facts and figures to show existen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
