CESTAT allows appeal after customs officer improperly rejected declared value using Rule 7 without establishing reasonable grounds under Rule 12

The CESTAT NEW DELHI allowed the appeal in a customs valuation case involving imported brass ceramic cartridge parts. The proper officer rejected the declared transaction value and applied Rule 7 valuation solely based on weight discrepancy, despite the appellant's consistent position that goods were imported on piece basis, not weight. The tribunal held that the department failed to establish reasonable grounds to doubt the declared value's accuracy under Rule 12 of the Valuation Rules. The mere acceptance of reassessed value by the appellant was insufficient to prove under-valuation allegations. The department did not discharge its burden of proof, and the statutory valuation procedure was not properly followed, resulting in appeal allowance.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Mis-declaration of Weight
2. Alleged Under Valuation
3. Application of Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules
4. Rejection of Transaction Value and Reassessment

Summary:

Mis-declaration of Weight:
The appellant filed Bill of Entry for Brass Ceramic Cartridge, declaring a weight of 18144 kg. However, upon examination, the actual weight was found to be 21120 kg, leading to a discrepancy of 2976 kg. The appellant argued that the goods were imported on a per-piece basis, and the weight discrepancy was due to the inclusion of packaging materials. The Tribunal found these observations sufficient to hold that there was no cogent reason to doubt the truth and accuracy of the declared value, and hence, the transaction value should have been accepted.

Alleged Under Valuation:
The Department rejected the declared value of Rs. 28,08,128/- and reassessed it at Rs. 55,83,280/-, based on a market survey conducted in a specific area. The appellant contended that Rule 7 was wrongly adopted without proper market enquiry and that the reassessment was based on an arbitrary market survey. The Tribunal noted that no contemporaneous import data or evidence of similar imported goods was provided, and the reassessment did not follow the sequential application of Rules 4 to 9. The Tribunal held that the Department failed to produce cogent evidence to support the allegations of under valuation.

Application of Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules:
The Department invoked Rule 12, doubting the truth or accuracy of the declared value due to the weight discrepancy. The Tribunal explained that Rule 12 requires a two-step verification process, including a preliminary enquiry and an opportunity for the importer to clarify doubts. The Tribunal found that the Department did not follow this statutory procedure and that the doubt raised was not reasonable or based on 'certain reasons' as required under Rule 12.

Rejection of Transaction Value and Reassessment:
The Tribunal observed that the reassessment was not done sequentially as required by Rules 4 to 9. The Department directly invoked Rule 7 without following the necessary steps. The Tribunal also noted that the market survey report, which was the basis for reassessment, lacked corroborative evidence and did not follow the statutory procedure. The Tribunal concluded that the Department did not discharge its burden of proving the allegations of under valuation and mis-declaration.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order under challenge and allowed the appeal with consequential relief, noting that the Department failed to follow the statutory procedure and did not provide sufficient evidence to support the allegations.

Order Pronounced:
(Order pronounced in open court on 20/10/2023.)

---