2022 (12) TMI 1338 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Overturns Rejection of Transaction Value, Grants Appeal

M/s DM MARKETING INC Versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS (IMPORT) ICD PATPARGANJ NEW DELHI

The Tribunal found that the rejection of the transaction value by the Deputy Commissioner was not in accordance with the law, leading to the unsustainable ... Valuation of imported goods - it is alleged that the declared value of the goods was lower than the values in the contemporaneous data of the similar goods imported - contemporaneous data of imports - rejection of declared value - opportunity was granted to the appellant for hearing or not - HELD THAT:- If the transaction value is rejected under rule 12 then the value of identical goods must be considered and if it is not available and the value of similar goods must be considered and if the value of identical or similar goods were both not available then the value can be deducted by considering the price at which such goods are sold in wholesale and after certain deductions. If such prices are also not available then the value can be computed by considering the cost of raw-material and fabrication cost plus other expenses. If none of these methods are possible then the residual method can be followed based on the above principles. In this case all the four Bills of Entry based on which the declared values were rejected were imported or the Bills of Entry were filed more than a month after the disputed Bill of Entry. From the Table we cannot make out as to which Customs House the goods in these Bills of Entry were imported from and in what quantities and from which country. Further, we find that the assessable value in these Bills of Entry were given in Rupees whereas the declared values in the Bill of Entry are in US dollars. It is not clear of what rate of exchange is applied to convert rupees into dollars to re-determine the assessable value under Rule 5. The rejection of the transaction value by the Deputy Commissioner is not in accordance with law. Consequently, its re-determination under Rule 5 cannot also sustain - in the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) did not discuss any issue related to rejection of transaction value and re-determination of the values - appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Rejection of Declared Value2. Re-determination of Value3. Opportunity to Present Case4. Use of Contemporaneous Data5. Application of Customs Valuation RulesIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Rejection of Declared Value:The Deputy Commissioner rejected the declared transaction value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. The rejection was based on the contemporaneous data of similar goods imported at higher prices. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, noting that the order was reasoned and detailed.2. Re-determination of Value:The Deputy Commissioner re-determined the value of the imported goods using Rule 5, based on the contemporaneous import data. This led to a confirmed demand of differential duty amounting to Rs. 18,44,211/-. The appellant contested this re-determination, arguing that the data used was from a period after their Bill of Entry was filed, making it unreasonable to compare.3. Opportunity to Present Case:The appellant argued that they were not given a proper opportunity to present their case. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found this contention incorrect, noting that the appellant's representative had attended the personal hearing and made submissions.4. Use of Contemporaneous Data:The appellant contended that the contemporaneous data used by the Deputy Commissioner was selectively chosen to show higher values and was from a period after their import. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, noting that the data used for comparison was from Bills of Entry filed more than a month later, and lacked details on the goods, quantities, and ports of import.5. Application of Customs Valuation Rules:The Tribunal emphasized the correct application of the Customs Valuation Rules. Rule 12 requires a 'reason to doubt' the declared value, followed by a 'reasonable doubt' after further enquiry. The Tribunal found that the Deputy Commissioner did not follow this sequential approach properly and failed to provide necessary details and documents to the appellant for a proper defense. Additionally, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not adequately address the rejection of the transaction value and the re-determination under Rule 5.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the rejection of the transaction value by the Deputy Commissioner was not in accordance with the law and, consequently, the re-determination under Rule 5 could not sustain. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order dated 06.11.2019 was set aside with consequential relief to the appellant.