2025 (9) TMI 1347 - AT - Customs

Order set aside for relying on untested statements; fresh valuation under Customs Valuation Rules 1988/2007 and section 28 limits enforced

CESTAT MUMBAI set aside an order that rejected the declared value of imported used cranes and remanded the matter for fresh valuation under the Customs ... Recovery of short paid duty - Mis-declaration of value of ‘used cranes’ - rejection of declared value - re-determination of the value in terms of rule 8 under the erstwhile Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 and rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - applicability of time limitation - re-valuation based upon the certificate of chartered engineer, the plea for cross-examination of the certifying authority was rejected peremptorily - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- An identical issue on valuation of similar goods had come up before the Tribunal and, while setting aside unsupported appropriation, the re-assessment was called in question on the plea of importer therein that reliance upon statements for the purpose, and that, too, without testing for relevancy under section 138B of Customs Act, 1962, for disturbing the declared value was improper even if the manner of such declaration was questionable. In other words, except by strict compliance with the Rules framed under the authority of section 14 of Customs Act, 1962, re-assessment would not meet the test of soundness to enable which the matter was remanded. The culmination of de novo proceedings was agitated once again before the Tribunal and, in re Karim Jaria [2022 (4) TMI 948 - CESTAT MUMBAI] while holding that 'The re-assessment, recovery of differential duty and confiscation of ‘used cranes’ imported by M/s Crown Lifters Pvt Ltd in the impugned order fails.' As, in the present dispute, the value had been similarly determined solely on the basis of statements recorded during the course of investigation, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order similarly and remand the matter back to the original authority to determine the value afresh in terms of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988/2007, as applicable. It is seen that the impugned order had appropriated the amount paid during investigation towards alleged dues arising from short-payment of duty on imports effected prior to the period permitted by section 28 of Customs Act, 1962. Clearly, that is not a liability in the absence of empowerment to contemplate recovery. There is no voluntary acceptance of duty liability and willing readiness to accept that obligation either. Appropriation is a consequence of empowerment to recover and hence not applicable to the disputed imports. Appeal allowed by way of remand. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the declared customs value of imported used cranes could be rejected and re-determined solely on the basis of statements recorded during investigation without complying strictly with the Customs Valuation Rules framed under section 14 of the Customs Act and without independent corroborative evidence. 2. Whether refusal to permit cross-examination of persons whose statements were relied upon (in the absence of recorded reasons) violated principles of natural justice and the requirement of testing relevancy under section 138B of the Customs Act. 3. Whether appropriation of amounts paid during investigation towards alleged dues arising from imports effected beyond the period permitted for recovery under section 28 of the Customs Act was legally sustainable in the absence of statutory empowerment or voluntary acceptance of liability. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity of rejection/re-determination of declared value based solely on statements and compliance with Customs Valuation Rules Legal framework: Rejection of declared value and re-determination must conform to the Rules made under section 14 of the Customs Act (Customs Valuation (Determination of Price/Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988/2007). Any reassessment to recover differential duty requires a proper foundation in those Rules and must satisfy statutory tests for determination of value. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal's prior decision addressing similar valuation exercises held that reliance solely on statements without corroboration is insufficient; reassessment must be supported by compliance with the valuation Rules. The decision of the Supreme Court in the cited precedent (referred to by parties) on evidentiary and procedural safeguards was relied upon. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that the impugned re-valuation rested essentially on statements taken during investigation (including confessional or admissions) and certificates from a chartered engineer, but lacked independent corroborative proof of the actual price of each used crane. In such circumstances, reliance on statements alone is too fragile a foundation to justify rejection of declared value or application of the Rules to compute a new value. The Court emphasized that strict compliance with the statutory valuation regime is necessary before disturbing declared value; otherwise the re-assessment cannot meet the test of soundness. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where re-determination of customs value is founded solely on uncorroborated statements obtained in investigation, absent strict adherence to the Rules under section 14 and independent corroboration, the re-assessment is unsustainable and must be set aside/remanded for fresh determination under the applicable valuation Rules. (Cross-reference to Issue 2 regarding necessity of cross-examination for corroboration.) Conclusion: The impugned order's rejection and recalculation of declared value on the basis of statements alone was unsound; matter is remitted to the original authority to determine value afresh in terms of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988/2007 as applicable. Issue 2 - Right to cross-examination and relevancy under section 138B; natural justice implications Legal framework: Section 138B of the Customs Act governs admissibility and relevancy of statements recorded under investigation; the principles of natural justice require that evidence relied upon for adverse findings be susceptible to testing, including cross-examination where relevance or weight is disputed or where statements form the sole or principal basis for adverse inference. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal's earlier ruling in a similar matter was cited, holding that cross-examination is essential when material adverse findings are based on statements and that denial of cross-examination without recorded reasons is contrary to principles of natural justice. The Court accepted that line of reasoning and applied it to the present facts. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the Commissioner denied requests for cross-examination of key declarants without recording specific reasons and that the statements were pivotal to the finding of undervaluation. Given the absence of corroboration, the test of cross-examination becomes critical for attributing relevancy and weight. Reliance on prior judgments stating cross-examination is not an absolute right was held to be misplaced where the authority fails to furnish reasons for denial, particularly when such statements are the primary basis for reassessment. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where statements form the principal basis for valuation adjustment, refusal to allow cross-examination without recording specific reasons violates natural justice and the statutory requirement for testing relevancy under section 138B; such a refusal vitiates proceedings and requires remand. Obiter - General propositions that cross-examination is not an absolute right remain subject to the qualification that denial must be reasoned when the statements are crucial. Conclusion: The refusal to permit cross-examination of key persons whose statements were used to overturn declared value was procedurally unsound; the matter requires remand for fresh adjudication with opportunity to test such evidence in accordance with section 138B and principles of natural justice. Issue 3 - Legality of appropriation/recovery for imports beyond the statutory period and requirement of statutory empowerment Legal framework: Section 28 of the Customs Act prescribes limitation and manner of recovery of customs duty; appropriation of amounts paid requires statutory empowerment and cannot be effected where the period for recovery has lapsed or where no liability has been established or voluntarily accepted. Precedent treatment: The Court treated the appropriation issue in light of the statutory recovery regime and the requirement of lawful empowerment to recover duties; no authority was found to permit appropriation in respect of time-barred imports or when impugned liability remains unproved. Interpretation and reasoning: The impugned order had appropriated amounts paid during investigation towards alleged dues for imports that were prior to the permissible five-year recovery period (as invoked). The Court observed that appropriation is a consequence of lawful empowerment to recover; absent statutory power or voluntary acceptance of liability, appropriation is not a legitimate remedy. Since the disputed imports were outside the period for recovery under section 28 and there was no acceptance of liability, the appropriation could not stand. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Appropriation of amounts towards alleged customs dues requires statutory empowerment to recover the dues; appropriation is impermissible where the claim is time-barred under the recovery provisions or where there is no voluntary acceptance of liability. Obiter - None beyond the immediate holding. Conclusion: The appropriation of amounts paid during investigation towards alleged duties on time-barred imports was not sustainable; appropriation cannot be operated without empowerment or voluntary acceptance, and the impugned appropriation was set aside. Final Disposition (cross-references) Given (a) the re-determination rested principally on uncorroborated statements (see Issue 1), (b) cross-examination of those persons was denied without recorded reasons in breach of section 138B and natural justice (see Issue 2), and (c) appropriation was effected in respect of purported liabilities beyond the statutory recovery period without empowerment (see Issue 3), the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the original authority for fresh determination of value and consequential relief strictly in accordance with the Customs Valuation Rules and the statutory recovery provisions.