2025 (12) TMI 325 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds enhanced customs value for imported motorcycle batteries after importer fails to contest evidence or attend hearing

M/s. Divine Homes Infra Pvt. Ltd. Versus. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi

CESTAT upheld the Commissioner's order rejecting the declared transaction value of imported motorcycle batteries and re-determining their assessable value ... Rejection of value declared of the imported goods - motorcycle batteries - re-determination of he value - ex-parte adjudication - appellant failed to file reply to SCN nas also failed to appear - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner has recorded that despite sufficient opportunities having been given to the appellant, the appellant neither filed a reply to show cause notice nor did he appear. The Commissioner decided the case on the basis of the evidence available on record. The Commissioner has recorded a finding, based on documents, that it was proved beyond doubt that the declared value of the motorcycle batteries imported by the appellant was much lower as compared to the price prevailing in the international market at or about the relevant time. The value of the imported batteries was rejected by the Commissioner for good and valid reasons as there was enough correspondence available on the record regarding the value of the similar batteries at or about the same time. It was for the appellant to have filed a reply to the show cause notice and controverted the documents or evidence placed by the department in show cause notice but that was not done. It is at this stage of the dictation of the order, that Shri Aman Ahluwalia learned counsel appeared and stated that the hearing may be adjourned so that his senior could make submissions. There is no good reason to adjourn the hearing of the appellant at this stage - there is no illegality in the impugned order which may call for any interference in this appeal - appeal dismisssed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether rejection of the declared assessable value of imported motorcycle batteries under section 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 was legally justified. 1.2 Whether re-determination of the transaction value of the imported motorcycle batteries under rule 4 of the 2007 Rules, based on contemporaneous prices and documentary evidence, was valid. 1.3 Whether the ex parte adjudication by the adjudicating authority, due to the importer's failure to file a reply and appear for personal hearing, vitiated the impugned order. 1.4 Whether any ground was made out before the Appellate Tribunal to warrant interference with the impugned order or to grant a further adjournment of the appeal hearing. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 2.1 Rejection of declared value under section 14(2) and rule 12 of the 2007 Rules Legal framework (as discussed) 2.1.1 The adjudication proceeded under section 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 for rejection of the declared assessable value, and rule 4 of the 2007 Rules for determining the transaction value. Interpretation and reasoning 2.1.2 The adjudicating authority identified the core issue as rejection of the declared assessable value, re-determination of the transaction value for 8 Bills of Entry, and imposition of penalty. 2.1.3 The importer had declared values of USD 1.8, USD 2.20 and USD 3.00 for 12V2.5AH, 12V5AH and 12V9AH motorcycle batteries imported from Chinese suppliers. 2.1.4 The Commissioner examined email correspondence between the same foreign suppliers and other Indian buyers (including Crown Power India and others), as well as a contemporaneous invoice, which reflected significantly higher CIF prices for identical or similar motorcycle batteries (e.g. USD 4.30, 7.25, 10.78; USD 3.75, 5.9, 9.6; USD 4.45, 7.75, 11.00; and an invoice showing USD 3.36 for 12V2.5AH). 2.1.5 On comparison, the Commissioner found that the values declared in the 8 Bills of Entry were much lower than the prices reflected in these documents and lower than prices prevailing in the international market at or about the relevant time. 2.1.6 The Commissioner treated these documents and correspondences as reliable evidence of contemporaneous prices of similar goods from the same suppliers and concluded that the importer had mis-declared the value in violation of section 46(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.1.7 The importer's explanation that the goods were of inferior quality with a shorter lifespan (three to four months) was rejected in view of a clarification from the supplier stating that only standard, high-quality batteries were manufactured and supplied at market prices to other Indian clients. 2.1.8 The Commissioner also relied on the statement of the importer's Director admitting that the batteries were imported at much lower prices than those prevailing in the international market at or about the relevant time. Conclusions 2.1.9 The Court held that the Commissioner had 'good and valid reasons' to reject the declared value under rule 12 of the 2007 Rules, supported by sufficient contemporaneous documentary evidence. 2.1.10 The finding that the importer mis-declared the value of the imported motorcycle batteries was upheld, and rejection of the declared assessable value under section 14(2) read with rule 12 was affirmed. 2.2 Re-determination of value under rule 4 of the 2007 Rules and demand of differential duty Interpretation and reasoning 2.2.1 After rejecting the declared value, the Commissioner re-determined the transaction value under rule 4 of the 2007 Rules by taking the CIF value per battery as reflected in contemporaneous imports and documented prices, including DGOV data and imports of a comparable importer, and applying MRPs with admissible abatements. 2.2.2 On the basis of such re-determined value, the Commissioner confirmed total customs duty and demanded differential duty, together with interest and penalties, as proposed in the show cause notice. 2.2.3 The Court noted that the valuation was re-determined on the strength of documentary evidence and contemporaneous correspondence relating to similar goods at or about the same time, which remained uncontroverted by the importer. Conclusions 2.2.4 The Court found no infirmity in the re-determination of value under rule 4 and consequent confirmation of differential duty and associated financial liabilities. 2.3 Validity of ex parte adjudication due to non-participation by the importer Interpretation and reasoning 2.3.1 It was recorded that the importer did not file any reply to the show cause notice and did not appear before the Commissioner on dates fixed for personal hearing despite being granted sufficient opportunities. 2.3.2 The Commissioner, noting these facts in the adjudication order, proceeded to decide the matter on the basis of evidence available on record. 2.3.3 The Court observed that it was incumbent on the importer to file a reply to the show cause notice and to controvert the documents and evidence relied upon by the department; the importer's failure to do so left the record unrebutted. Conclusions 2.3.4 The Court implicitly upheld the propriety of the ex parte adjudication, holding that the Commissioner was justified in deciding the case on the available record after granting adequate opportunity. 2.4 Refusal of further adjournment before the Appellate Tribunal and final affirmation of the impugned order Interpretation and reasoning 2.4.1 The appeal had previously been adjourned on requests by the appellant's counsel, and the Bench had clearly indicated on 29.01.2025 that no further adjournment would be granted. 2.4.2 On the date fixed, when the case was called out, no one appeared for the appellant and the Court proceeded to hear the departmental representative and dictate the order. 2.4.3 During the dictation, counsel for the appellant appeared and sought adjournment on the ground that his senior would argue, but the Court declined, noting that the hearing had already concluded and no 'good reason' was shown to adjourn the matter at that stage. 2.4.4 On merits, the Court held that there was 'no illegality' in the impugned order warranting interference in appeal. Conclusions 2.4.5 The refusal to grant a further adjournment was upheld as justified in the circumstances. 2.4.6 The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order of valuation re-determination and consequential demands was affirmed in toto.