9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was enhanced to USD 50 accepted by the appellant. Having accepted the value the appellant cannot now claim that the enhanced value cannot be the basis for redetermination of the value. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI [2019 (5) TMI 1152 - SUPREME COURT] observed that 'Declared valuation can be rejected based upon the evidence which qualifies and meets the criteria of 'certain reasons'. Besides the opinion formed must be reasonable. Reference to foreign journals for the price quoted in exchanges, etc. to find out the correct international price of concerned goods would be relevant but reliance can be placed on such material only when the adjudicating authority had conducted enquiries and ascertained details with reference to the goods imported which are identical or similar and 'certain reasons' exists and justifies detailed investigation. These reasons are to be recorded and if requested disclosed/communicated to the importer. Valuation alerts could be relied upon for default valuation computation under the Rules.' Since the appellant had cleared identical products earlier on payment of USD 50, the Commissioner's o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted goods 'Oath Token' are physical devices meant for internal use by the appellant that authenticate and authorized the user of computer services with security access to internet HP network. The appellant had earlier filed bills of entry No. 2454990 dated 20.12.2010 and 4200544 dated 28.07.2011 declaring the value as USD 6.5 which was enhanced by the Department to USD 50 on which the appellant paid the appropriate duty by accepting the value. It is submitted that the enhancement of value in the present case cannot be sustained based on the earlier enhancement by the Revenue. It is also stated that rejection of value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 (CVR) should be redetermined by proceeding sequentially through Rule 4 to 9 of CVR, 2007. 3.1 It is further submitted that the assessments were provisional and having not finalized yet cannot be the basis for enhancing the value. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: * Sedna Impex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2017 (347) ELT 317 (Tri.-Chennai) * Samar Polytex Ltd. Vs. Commissioner 2009 (238) ELT 621 (Tri.) * Ravi Dyeware Co. Ltd. Vs. CC 2014 (301) ELT 421 (Tri.-Mumbai) * Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accept the transactional value as declared. However, where 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (h) The importer has to be given opportunity of hearing before the proper officer finally 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove, since the appellant had cleared identical products earlier on payment of USD 50, the Commissioner's order to redetermine the value based on the earlier acceptance of the value at USD 50 cannot be found fault with. In fact, the appellant in the present 5 Bills of Entry vide his letter dated 29.09.2011 has clearly admitted that the differential duty and interest has been voluntarily paid and had requested to drop all proceedings. It is also a fact that the appellant had admitted that the goods were received free of charge under no charge invoice as submitted by them in their letter dated 15.11.2011. However, the claim of the appellant that the assessments were provisional has to be accepted as we notice that the present bills of entry the word 'provisional' is mentioned in all these bills of entry. Hence, since the assessments are provisional the question of investigation and imposition of penalty without finalizing the assessments does not arise. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the order stands remanded for finalizing the assessments.
Appeal is allowed by way of remand on above terms.
( Order pronounced in Open Court on 12. 03. 2025. ) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
