9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on value in respect of 10,79,000 Kgs. of Black Pepper imported vide various Bills of Entry and re-determined the same as Rs.30,12,86,095/- in terms of Rule 3(1) and Rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act 1962. In the said order, the Commissioner has also declared the Black Pepper which is imported/impounded here, in these appeals, as 'Prohibited', had therefore been improperly imported and hence, liable for confiscation under Sections 111(m) and (o) of the Act ibid. The specific demands as could be seen from the order portion of the OIO are as under: (i) I hereby impose a Penalty of Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores only) on M/s.Sindhu Lakshmi Impex, Chennai under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) I hereby impose a Penalty of Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores only) on M/s.Sindhu Lakshmi Impex, Chennai under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. (iii) I hereby impose a penalty of Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores only) on Shri Saravanan Palaniappan, Partner, M/s.Sindhu Lakshmi Impex under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. (iv) I hereby impose a Penalty of Rs.10,00,00,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... became 'prohibited' as they failed to meet MIP condition set out in the above DGFT Notification. 5. The above facts led to the issuance of SCN dated 29.04.2020 under Section 11 and Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, to many noticees alleging various violations, thereby proposing to demand/levy applicable duty/penalty as the case may be, on the respective noticees/persons. It appears from the record that all the noticees filed their respective replies to the above SCN seriously refuting the allegations levelled against them and thereby justifying the import price vis-à-vis the declared value. The main contention of such replies are: (i) from the Bill of Entry the proper officer had approved the classification and assessed the Bill of Entry on self-assessment by the importer during which time the proper officer could have examined the validity of the import in the context of MIP; the importer/Revenue had not considered the fact of the assessment, whether the assessment by the proper officer himself or by the self-assessment is an appealable order for which, reliance was placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of ITC Limited - Vs CCE, Kolkata - 2019 (368) ELT 21 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Foreign Exporter. There is no legal backing and hence on this count alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8.2 With regard to the proposal for confiscation of the goods it is contended that Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 is invokable only when there is a mis-declaration with reference to import documents, the proper officer must examine the declaration with reference to Foreign Trade Policy and then only he can examine the correctness of classification and rates of duty claimed. 8.3 It is also contended that the appellants were under the bonafide impression that the value to be declared in the Bill of Entry should be in terms of Section14 of Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs Valuation Rules, and not according to the Minimum Import Price. The duty has been paid on the value as per the provisions which factual position is not disputed in the SCN and also not objected to in SCN. Therefore, invocation of Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 is untenable and legally unsustainable. 8.4 Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not invokable as there is no post-import condition in the Minimum Import Price Policy which has not been complied with. In this r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, is in order? 11. The Adjudicating Authority/Commissioner has invoked Rule 9 ibid to determine the value of imported goods but however, at para 51, he holds that the value declared in the Bills of Entry and the related invoices by LEI, Sri Lanka were not correct, should be rejected and re-determined as per Rule 3(1) read with Rule 9 ibid; and thus, proceeds to do so. For ease of understanding, Rule 9 ibid which is the Residual Method, is reproduced below: 9. Residual method. - (1) Subject to the provisions of rule 3, where the value of imported goods cannot be determined under the provisions of any of the preceding rules, the value shall be determined using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of these rules and on the basis of data available in India : Provided that the value so determined shall not exceed the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale for delivery at the time and place of importation in the course of international trade, when the seller or buyer has no interest in the business of other and price is the sole consideration for the sale or offer for sale. (2) No value shall be determined under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of under-valuation, which is not so. The relevant discussions in the impugned order appears to treat the 'relationship' between the parties as itself a sufficient ground to reject the transaction value. 16. It is not the case of the Revenue that by promptly paying customs duty and CGST on import, the appellants have caused serious injury/loss to the revenue. Further, it is also not the case of the Revenue that the Notification (supra) or by virtue of any law applicable at the relevant time, there was restriction in place insofar as the selling price of the imported goods was concerned, to attribute any violations. 17. In view of the above discussions, we are of the clear view that the declared assessable value of the impugned goods did not warrant any interference, much less any re-determination as done by the proper officer in the impugned order and hence, the impugned order cannot sustain. Consequently, there cannot be any room also to impose any penalties under Sections 112 & 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on the Appellants. 18. We therefore set aside the same in toto and allow the Appeals with consequential benefits if any, as per law. ( Order pronounced in Open ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
