2025 (12) TMI 835 - AT - Customs

Order quashes value enhancement and penalties; unsigned foreign documents and s.108 statements invalid absent s.138B compliance

CESTAT set aside the impugned OIO in toto, allowing the appeal of the importer. It held that the rejection of transaction value and enhancement of ... Rejection of transaction value - mis-declaration of origin of the goods for the wrongful availment of benefit of Notfn. No.46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011 - requirement to include insurance value to the final assessable value - Reliability of statements recorded u/s 108 of CA, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The basis for concluding that these imports were undervalued was upon a comparison of the average unit price declared by the importer in these imports with the average import unit price of other Indian importers for import of similar goods from China and the resultant finding that the average unit price declared by the other importers were found to be at variance with the average unit price declared by the importer in multiple instances and on the lower side and thus the transaction value declared by the importer is not correct and cannot be accepted. The export documents stated to have been submitted to the Uzbekistan Customs Authorities by the Consignor/Exporter which were purported to be forwarded to DRI by the Embassy of India in Moscow, although relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority, has neither been provided to the Importers, despite their requests nor reasons for any impediment to provide them stated. Further, the commercial invoice No.15 dated 24.12.2019 stated to be issued by the Uzbek Supplier (JV LLC Andijan Silk) and stated to have been submitted to Uzbek Customs indicating a higher unit price is evidently unsigned. The reliance placed on the statements of appellant is opposed to law as the procedure prescribed under Section 138B of Customs Act, 1962 has not been adhered to. Non adherence to the mandated procedure has denuded the statements of their relevance, rendering any reliance placed on them untenable. This Tribunal, in benches across the country, placing reliance on various decisions including those of High Courts and Apex Courts, have consistently held that the test of relevancy of the statements made under Section 108, for reasons of the stipulations in the sub-section (2) of Section 138 has to be satisfied under the procedure stipulated in Section 138B(1), requiring the Adjudicating Authority to examine the deponent as a witness to prove the contents of the statement, to satisfy himself as to its voluntary nature and when intended to be relied on against the noticee/assessee, ought to be tested on the touchstone of cross examination - The reliance placed on these statements without testing their relevancy on the anvil of Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962 and without the deponent being offered for cross examination, being decidedly untenable, render the findings premised on the same unsustainable on this count too. There are force in the contention of the appellant that when the transaction value, description, and quantity at the time of importation based on the commercial invoices received by them from their overseas suppliers were declared and the consignments were given out of charge, the department has to prove undervaluation by cogent evidence. The contention of the appellants that the import by other importers from suppliers who are different from the suppliers of the appellant, made on different dates, can vary in value based on various factors like negotiation and discounts extended, difference in quantity, timing of placing of the order, quality etc bears credence. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence of any extra amount having been paid by the appellant towards the said imports over and above the transaction value that has been paid through banking channels. The revenue has also not recovered any parallel invoices pertaining to these imports to substantiate such insinuation. It is well settled principle of law that burden squarely lies on the department to prove under-valuation. Value cannot be determined on inference and in the absence of mutuality of interest between importer and supplier duly evidenced or any credible evidence of additional flowback of consideration related to the impugned imports, invoice value cannot be enhanced - Rule 5 of the valuation rules 2007 invoked, itself calls for identifying the value of similar goods sold for export to India and imported at or about the same time as the goods being valued and sub-rule (2) thereof stipulates that the provisions of clause (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1), sub-rule (2) and sub rule (3) of rule 4 shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of similar goods. Critical to such application is the determination of sale at the same commercial level and in substantially the same quantity as the goods being valued. The allegations against appellant will also not sustain and resultantly the findings in the impugned order pertaining to redetermination of assessable value, demands of differential duty, appropriation towards the differential duty and interest liabilities, liability to confiscation, imposition of redemption fines and penalties on the appellants are unsustainable. The impugned order in original cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside in toto - Appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (1) Whether the allegation of misdeclaration of country of origin and wrongful availment of exemption under the AIFTA notification was established on the basis of the investigation and evidence on record. (2) Whether the rejection of declared transaction value and redetermination of assessable value for raw silk imported from Uzbekistan (Annexures A and B) were legally sustainable in the absence of proper disclosure and supply of relied-upon export documents, and in the absence of certification under Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962. (3) Whether statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be relied upon to prove undervaluation without complying with the mandatory procedure under Section 138B, including production of the deponent for examination and cross-examination. (4) Whether the enhancement of value of raw silk and Tussah silk imported from China (Annexures C and D) based merely on comparison with average unit prices of other importers and by invoking Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 was permissible, having regard to Section 14 of the Customs Act and the Valuation Rules. (5) Whether the burden of proving undervaluation and the conditions for rejection of transaction value under Section 14 of the Customs Act read with Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 were discharged by the Department. (6) Whether consequent orders of confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties on the importer and its Director under Sections 111(m), 112, 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained once the basis for undervaluation and misdeclaration failed. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (1): Alleged misdeclaration of country of origin and wrongful AIFTA exemption Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the investigation was initiated on intelligence that goods declared as originating from Vietnam were in fact of Chinese/Uzbek origin routed through Vietnam to claim AIFTA benefit. However, the Adjudicating Authority itself recorded that: (a) forensic examination of electronic devices voluntarily produced by the importer yielded no incriminating evidence of such routing; and (b) Certificates of Origin sent for verification to the Vietnamese authority were confirmed as authentic and compliant with AIFTA requirements. The Adjudicating Authority also concluded that the suspicion regarding non-Vietnamese origin was not corroborated by direct evidence. Conclusions: The Tribunal held that no direct evidence established misdeclaration of origin or wrongful availment of AIFTA exemption. The suspicion regarding routing through Vietnam remained unproved and could not support any adverse finding. Issue (2): Validity of rejection and redetermination of transaction value for imports from Uzbekistan (Annexures A and B) based on foreign export documents and Rule 3/Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules Legal framework discussed: Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962; Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, particularly Rules 3, 9 and 12; Section 138C and Section 151B of the Customs Act; Notification No. 58/2021-Cus (N.T). Case-law cited and relied upon included decisions of the Supreme Court and Tribunal, including Commissioner of Customs (Imports) v. Ganapati Overseas and Autocreaters v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, regarding evidentiary standards and supply of relied-upon documents. Interpretation and reasoning: For Annexure A imports, undervaluation was alleged primarily on (i) export documents said to be filed with Uzbekistan Customs and received through the Embassy of India, and (ii) purported admission in the statements of the Director. The Tribunal found that: (a) the export documents, though relied upon, were not supplied to the importer despite specific requests; (b) no reason for non-supply or any impediment was recorded; (c) the key commercial invoice from the Uzbek supplier indicating higher prices was unsigned, rendering its evidentiary value suspect; and (d) no authenticated copies, with proper chain of custody and certification as required by law, were furnished. The Tribunal held that reliance on unsigned, uncertified documents, not furnished to the importer, is contrary to basic principles of fairness and natural justice, and that mere reference to Section 151B and the bilateral customs assistance agreement could not override the mandatory requirements of Section 138C regarding certification and admissibility of electronic or foreign-origin documents. On Annexure B, the alleged undervaluation and enhancement at a uniform uplift of 10.93% under Rule 9 were founded entirely on the supposed undervaluation in Annexure A. Since the foundational premise in Annexure A was held unsustainable, the consequential presumption for Annexure B had no independent evidentiary basis. Conclusions: (a) Reliance on unsigned, undisclosed and uncertified export documents from Uzbekistan Customs, not supplied to the importer and not compliant with Section 138C, was held wholly untenable. (b) The Department failed to lawfully establish undervaluation in Annexure A; accordingly, the demands based on Rule 3 read with Rule 10 and Rule 12 failed. (c) As Annexure B enhancements were derivative of Annexure A findings, the demand of differential duty for Annexure B was also held untenable. Issue (3): Admissibility and use of statements recorded under Section 108 without compliance with Section 138B Legal framework discussed: Sections 108, 138B and 138C of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal referred to multiple decisions including Additional Director General (Adjudication) v. Its My Name Pvt. Ltd., Junaid Kudia and its affirmation by the Supreme Court, Jeen Bhavani International and its affirmation by the Supreme Court, Suni Aidasani @ Vicky, and M/s. Geetham Steels Pvt. Ltd., reiterating the necessity of following Section 138B to render statements relevant and admissible against a noticee. Interpretation and reasoning: The demand for Annexure A was substantially based on the Section 108 statements of the Director, treating them as admission of undervaluation. The Tribunal found that: (a) the Adjudicating Authority did not examine the deponent as a witness to prove the statement or to verify its voluntariness; (b) no opportunity for cross-examination was granted despite the importer's express request; and (c) there was no compliance with the procedure mandated in Section 138B(1) and its requirement that such statements, when intended to be used against the assessee, be properly tested for relevancy and voluntariness. The Tribunal characterised this non-compliance as a deliberate disregard of a statutory prescription. Conclusions: Statements under Section 108 could not be relied upon as substantive evidence of undervaluation without prior compliance with Section 138B and without allowing cross-examination. The reliance on such statements was held untenable, and any findings founded on them were rendered unsustainable. Issue (4): Legality of enhancement of value for imports from China (Annexures C and D) under Rule 5 based on comparison with average prices of other importers Legal framework discussed: Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962; Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, particularly Rules 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 12; Supreme Court decision in Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India; Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta v. South Indian Television (P) Ltd.; Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions in Junaid Kudia. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that for Annexures C and D, the Department invoked Rule 5 to redetermine value based on the average unit price of 'other Indian importers' of similar goods from China, finding that the appellant's declared values were lower. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's contention that: (a) different importers, from different suppliers, at different times, and in different quantities, may legitimately have different prices based on negotiations, discounts, quantity, quality, timing, etc.; (b) no evidence existed of any extra consideration or flow-back over and above the invoiced price remitted through banking channels; (c) no parallel or higher-priced invoices relating to the appellant's own imports were recovered. In such conditions, mere comparison with average prices of other importers did not furnish 'reasonable doubt' under Rule 12 to reject the transaction value. The Tribunal emphasised the dicta in Century Metal Recycling that 'reasonable doubt' must be founded on 'certain reasons' and credible material, not mere suspicion or ipse dixit, and that suspicion alone cannot justify detailed enquiry or rejection of transaction value. It further noted that Rule 5 itself requires that the 'similar goods' used for comparison be sold for export to India and imported 'at or about the same time' and at the same commercial level and in substantially the same quantity, with the mutatis mutandis application of relevant provisions of Rule 4(1)(b), 4(1)(c), 4(2) and 4(3). The impugned order contained no discussion or finding demonstrating that the compared imports satisfied these statutory criteria of similarity, commercial level and quantity. Contemporaneous import data produced by the appellant, including imports at comparable or similar values, was cursorily disregarded. The Tribunal also observed, with reference to Junaid Kudia (affirmed by the Supreme Court), that where Bills of Entry have already been assessed and those assessments have attained finality owing to absence of appeal or review, there cannot be a re-assessment or enhancement purely on reappreciation of value without satisfying the legal tests for rejection of transaction value. Conclusions: (a) The Department failed to establish reasonable grounds to reject the declared transaction value for Annexures C and D under Section 14 read with Rule 12. (b) Invocation of Rule 5 on the basis of aggregate average prices of other importers, without satisfying the conditions as to similarity, commercial level and quantity, and without evidence of extra consideration, was invalid. (c) Enhancement of value and the consequent demand of differential duty in respect of imports from China (Annexures C and D) were held unsustainable. Issue (5): Burden of proof and statutory prerequisites for rejecting transaction value under Section 14 and the Valuation Rules Legal framework discussed: Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962; Customs Valuation Rules, 2007; Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta v. South Indian Television (P) Ltd.; Supreme Court and Tribunal authorities cited on undervaluation and evidentiary burden. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal reiterated that the starting point is acceptance of the transaction value in the ordinary course of commerce under Section 14, and that departure from transaction value is permissible only when there are cogent reasons, duly recorded, to reject it under the Valuation Rules. It stressed that: (a) the onus is squarely on the Department to prove undervaluation; (b) mere suspicion or casting doubt on invoices is insufficient; (c) undervaluation must be established either by evidence of additional consideration/flowback or by reliable information on comparable imports meeting statutory criteria. Relying on South Indian Television, the Tribunal recapitulated that if the Department alleges undervaluation, it must undertake detailed inquiries, gather material and adequate evidence, and if it cannot support the charge by evidence or information about comparable imports, the benefit of doubt goes to the importer. The Tribunal held that in the present case, for all four annexures, the Department had not: (i) provided authenticated, admissible foreign documents; (ii) complied with Sections 138B/138C for statements and electronic/foreign documents; (iii) proved comparable imports meeting the conditions of the Valuation Rules; or (iv) established any additional consideration beyond the invoiced price. Conclusions: The statutory preconditions for rejection of transaction value under Section 14 read with the Valuation Rules were not satisfied. The Department failed to discharge its burden of proving undervaluation, and the declared transaction values could not lawfully be rejected or enhanced. Issue (6): Sustainability of confiscation, redemption fine and penalties on the importer and Director Legal framework discussed: Sections 111(m), 112, 114A, 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Interpretation and reasoning: Confiscation and penalties were founded on the premise that the importer had misdeclared the transaction value, thereby rendering the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) and attracting penal consequences under Sections 112, 114A and 114AA, including penalties on the Director. The Tribunal having found that: (a) undervaluation was not proved for Annexures A, B, C or D; (b) the alleged misdeclaration of origin and wrongful AIFTA benefit remained unsubstantiated; and (c) the evidentiary foundations relied upon (foreign export documents, Section 108 statements, comparative pricing) were legally inadmissible or insufficient, it concluded that the basic factual and legal premise underlying confiscation and penalties was absent. Conclusions: With the failure of the undervaluation and misdeclaration allegations on merits, the consequential findings relating to liability to confiscation, redemption fine, demand of differential duty and interest, appropriation of sums already paid, and penalties on both the importer and the Director under Sections 111(m), 112, 114A and 114AA were held unsustainable. The entire impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief as per law.