TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 34
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imported under this Bill of Entry were examined and the description of the goods found as per the declaration made in the Bill of Entry as well as invoices. However, it has been alleged by the department that the value of the imported goods namely, dog food / snacks was grossly under-invoiced. The goods under the above-mentioned Bill of Entry were seized and later on released provisionally on payment of duty and furnishing of a bond etc. The Customs department has undertaken a detailed investigation regarding the actual value of the imported consignment, under the above mentioned live Bill of Entry as well as following other Bills of Entry, which were cleared between September 2012 to September 2013 by the appellant. i) 7978236 dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of imported goods) Rules,2007. The Department has resorted to Rule 7 of Customs Valuation Rules for conducting such inquiry, rejecting the valuation as suggested under Rule 5 and Rule 6 of Customs Valuation Rules, stating that there was no import of "similar goods" and hence value of similar goods was not in knowledge of the Department as per NIDB data. 4. On the basis of the market inquiry, the total assessable value of the goods covered under the six Bills of Entry (as mentioned above) was recalculated to Rs. 1,25,08,531/- involving total Customs Duties of Rs. 31,79,745/-. Since the importer has paid Customs duties of Rs. 16,05,350/- on all six Bills of Entry, a differential amount of Rs. 15,74,395/- has been demanded in the Show Cause....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rules, 2007 has not been followed. It has been provided in the Valuation Rules that in case the transactional value as declared, is found unacceptable to the Assessing officer, the Valuation Rules need to be followed sequentially. In this case, it has been brought to our notice that department has straight away invoked Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules without rejecting the Rule 5 of Customs Valuation Rules which provides that in case the transaction value as declared by the imported goods comes for rejection, in that case, the value of 'similar goods imported', at contemporaneous import price and normally in the same commercial quantities, need to be adopted for re-determination of the transaction value. The learned Counsel has argued ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore, the rejection of transaction value and enhancement of the same is arbitrary and not as per law. The learned Counsel has also relied upon the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shivam Electronics vs. CC (Import), Mumbai [2013-TIOL-2025-CESTAT-MUM]. 9. We have heard both the sides and also perused the record of the appellant. We are of the view that firstly the department did not have any concrete evidence at the time of assessment of the Bill of Entry for rejecting the transaction value declared by the appellant under section 14 of the Customs Act 1962 as the prices indicated on the website cannot primarily form the basis for undertaking the inquiry of an imported consignment. There should have been more concrete evidence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds, it is also to be proved that how the additional amount of money is being paid to the supplier. We find that there is not even mention of any such evidences in the show cause notice while reaching at the above opinion. We also take shelter of this Tribunal's order in the case of M/s. Shivam Electronics (supra) wherein it has been held that the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 have to be applied sequentially and something more than the mere suspicion, has to be proved for rejection of the transaction value. The relevant extract of the above mentioned order of this Tribunal is reproduced herewith: "5.1 As far as customs valuation is concerned, in the impugned case the value has been enhanced under Rule 7 and 9 of the Customs Valuatio....