9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of the Appellant. This finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is perverse for the reason that the said OIO was rendered in the case of M/s Sanjeevani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt Ltd and not in the case of the Appellant and imported the said OIO without assessing the facts of the present case reflects complete non-application of mind. Whether the enhancement of value, solely on the basis of coerced consent letters, DGoV Circular and in the absence of contemporaneous import data, is legal and valid? - HELD THAT:- This issue has been considered by various benches of the Tribunal and also, in the Appellant's own case which has gone upto the Supreme Court and has been decided in favour of the assessee in [2019 (5) TMI 1152 - SUPREME COURT]. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in a bunch of appeals, has considered the identical issue in detail after considering the various judgments of the Tribunal as well as of the Supreme Court. After considering all the judgments, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Hanuman Prasad & Sons Vs Commissioner of Customs [2024 (11) TMI 1361 - DELHI HIGH COURT], has decided the issue in favour of the importer-assessee by setting aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Menon and Ms. Parul Sachdeva, Advocates for the Appellant Shri Siddharth Jaiswal and Shri Aniram Meena, Authorized Representatives for the Respondent ORDER While preparing the order for these appeals, we note that a single appeal (bearing Diary No. 601472019 = Appeal No. C/61302/2019) was filed on 06.02.2019 against the Order-in-Appeal which decided 105 bills-of-entry by a single order; the same was listed before this Tribunal on 02.09.2019. On an objection raised by the Registry, the Appellant was directed by the Bench to file as many appeals as there are bills-of-entry (each of which is an Order-in-Original itself) to comply with the Rule 6A of the CESTAT Procedure Rules. Accordingly, the Appellant filed additionally 104 more appeals. However, on the day of hearing of the appeals, the main case i.e. Appeal No. C/61302/2019 was remained to be listed and tagged with 104 appeals which were heard on 31.01.2025. As all the appeals are arising out of a common impugned order i.e. Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)CUS/D-II/ICD-PPG/PIYALA/2447-2551/2018 dated 30.10.2018 and are inextricably interlinked; therefore, in the interest of justice, we direct that Appeal No. C/61302/2019 shall be dee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Customs Act, 1962. He further submits that the department has not proved that any of the exceptions specified in Rule 3(2) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 was present in these cases. 4.3 He further submits that the learned Commissioner (Appeals), while dismissing their appeal vide the impugned order, has made a completely new case of related party valuation to distinguish the bindings precedents in favour of the assessee in the assessee's own case. He further submits that the related party transaction was never even claimed as the basis for re-assessment and further, out of the 105 bills-of-entry, 82 bills-of-entry are not even imported from the so-called related party; moreover, the Order-in-Original dated 14.12.2017, rendered in another company's matter, has been used as tool to arrive at a mixed finding of fact and law that the Appellant imported from related parties. 4.4 He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed perversity and patent illegality in holding that re-assessment and re-determination of value was on account of host of factors, in addition to a DGoV Circular such as related party transacti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 601/2019] vide Final Order dated 20.10.2020 has held that in terms of provisions of Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962, once the Appellant accepts the value adopted by the Revenue, he cannot be held to be aggrieved with the same and it is not open to the Appellant to challenge the same by way of filing appeal. The said order of the Tribunal in Hanuman Prasad & Sons's case was challenged by the assessee before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi reported as Hanuman Prasad & Sons Vs Commissioner of Customs - CUSAA No. 27 of 2022 and the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 27.11.2024, after considering the catena of judgments of the Tribunal as well as the High Courts and the Supreme Court, has decided the issue in favour of the assessee-importer. 4.9 The learned Counsel further submits that acceptance of enhanced value of goods and waiver under Section 17(5) and/or Section 128 of the Customs Act does not operate as a bar to challenge the enhanced value by way of filing an appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act. He further submits that Appellant's right to challenge the enhanced value by way of filing the appeal cannot be curtailed as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n under the Customs Act and Customs Valuation Rules. 4.14 The learned Counsel further submits that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Hanuman Prasad & Sons Vs Commissioner of Customs - CUSAA No. 27 of 2022 vide its order dated 27.11.2024, set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 20.10.2020 passed in Appeal No. C/51601/2019 in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs Hanuman Prasad & Sons based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the Appellant's own case. He further submits that it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the power to doubt the declared value would have to be guided by the statutory provisions comprised in Rule 12. He also submits that the department purported reliance on NIDB/LME/DGoV for re-assessment/rejection of value and enhancement is directly contrary to the law as settled in the following judgments: * Agarwal Foundaries (P) Ltd Vs Commissioner - 2020 (371) ELT 859 (Tri-Hyd) [upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner Vs Agarwal Foundries (P) Ltd - 2020 (371) ELT A295 (SC)] * Century Metals Recycling Pvt Ltd vs UOI - 2019 (367) ELT 3 (SC). * Hanuman Prasad & Sons Vs Commissioner of Customs - Order dated 27.11.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that the said OIO, which has been relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), was even set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) in that party's case by following the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CCE & ST, Noida Vs Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt Ltd - 2019 (365) ELT 3 (SC). 9. Now, coming to the main issue whether the enhancement of value, solely on the basis of coerced consent letters, DGoV Circular and in the absence of contemporaneous import data, is legal and valid. We find that this issue has been considered by various benches of the Tribunal and also, in the Appellant's own case which has gone upto the Supreme Court and has been decided in favour of the assessee as reported in 2019 (367) ELT 3 (SC). Further, we find that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in a bunch of appeals, has considered the identical issue in detail after considering the various judgments of the Tribunal as well as of the Supreme Court. After considering all the judgments, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Hanuman Prasad & Sons Vs Commissioner of Customs - CUSAA No. 27 of 2022 vide its order dated 27.11.2024, has decided the issue in favour of the importer-assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 2(2) of the Act and is in any case, an issue that is no longer res integra, bearing in mind the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of ITC Ltd. vs. CCE - (2019) 17 SCC 46. ......... ....... 71. On an overall consideration of the statutory scheme governing the valuation of imports and reassessment, it becomes clear that the reasonable doubt which is spoken of in Rule 12 is indelibly connected to the aspect of the valuation of imported goods and the identification of the transaction value which is spoken of in Section 14. Section 14 introduces a deeming fiction when it provides that the value of the imported goods "shall be the transaction value" and which is ordained to be the price actually paid or is payable for the goods when sold. The 2007 Rules themselves owe their genesis to the identification of transaction value and which subject is principally regulated by Section 14 of the Act. ...... ...... 75. The imperative of reasons being recorded in support of the doubt with respect to declared value and the same being communicated to the importer were aspects on which due emphasis was laid by the Supreme Court in Century Metal Recycling as is evident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion, the perceived concession made in respect of the opinion harboured by the proper officer cannot possibly be interpreted or construed as detracting from or depriving the importer of the right to question the decision of the proper officer in accordance with law. The right to question the correctness of the decision of the proper officer, be it with respect to the formation of opinion or even on merits, is one which is protected by statute. The question, which as a sequitur, arises is whether that right itself can be said to have been abandoned. ....... ...... 89. The question of abandonment arose for consideration again before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Bhau Ram vs. Baij Nath Singh - 1961 SCC OnLine SC 292. The issue itself arose in light of the stand of the respondents that the appellants upon withdrawing the pre-emption price would be deemed to have accepted the decree and thus being deprived of the right to assail or question the same. ....... ...... 97. By virtue of Section 17(5) of the Act, the proper officer stands relieved of the obligation to pass a speaking order only in cases where the importer confirms his acceptance of the reassessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a alone would be insufficient for value reassessment without corroborative evidence or contemporaneous import comparisons. This decision underscored the importance of comprehensive evidence and procedural compliance in customs disputes, cautioning against arbitrary reliance on NIDB data. 104. It becomes apparent from a reading of these decisions collectively that the Tribunal has consistently found that a valuation addition based solely on NIDB data would wholly unwarranted and that any such reassessment would have to be shored by independent and cogent evidence. The legal position so articulated would ensure fairness and transparency in the determination of import values. The body of precedent noticed above have in unison held that mere reliance on external data without corroborative evidence or clear justification would fail to meet the tests and principles underlying the provisions enshrined in the 1988 Rules and 2007 Rules. They correctly lay emphasis on the imperatives of a reasoned approach to customs valuation and a deviation from declared values being founded on tangible and justiciable material. A reassessment or rejection of declared value would thus have to necessarily ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
