TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 500
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 245165/05.03.02, 489806/17.09.02, 319997/20.12.02, 317931/12.12.02 and 603568/16.04.03 with the declared value of Rs. 36,07,023, enhanced the assessable value to Rs. 76,05,649 to demand consequent differential duty of Rs. 20,31,302, imposed fine of Rs. 20,00,000 in lieu of confiscation under section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 after confiscating the same under section 111 (m) and imposed penalties of Rs. 5,00,000 on the importer and Rs. 50,000 each on two directors of the appellant-Company. 2. It is the contention of Learned Counsel for the appellant that the imports had been affected through M/s S & H Universal, a dealer of the manufacturer, M/s David Brown Hydraulic Ltd (now known as M/s Hamex Engineering Pvt Ltd) - both based in Great ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pose redemption fine on goods that were unavailable for confiscation. He also submits that the imposition of penalty on the appellant and the two directors of the appellant-Company was inappropriate as the dispute on valuation did not arise from any evidence of underhand dealings but was a consequence of application of rules in a context. 3. Learned Authorised Representative contends that the adjudicating authority was not incorrect in rejecting the declared value and determining the enhancement in view of contemporaneous import at a different value and the range of prices at which the manufacturer made goods available to buyers. He places reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab Processors Pvt Ltd v. Collector o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....during the arguments of Learned Counsel, do not appear to advance their cause. The decisions pertaining to imports effected before 1998, when rule 10A was incorporated in Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 to accord some flexibility to assessing authorities in the discharge their functions, are not to relevant to the legal circumstances governing the assessment. The cited decisions, noting the prerequisites for rejection of declared value, place the onus of justification on the assessing authority. With the changes in the Rules for valuation supra, the altered scope has been elaborately explained by the Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs v. HM Leisure [2006 ECR 542 Tri Bangalore] thus '6. We agree w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the reasons for introduction of Rule 10A. 'Even in cases where the situations provided in Rule 4(2) do not exist, there can be under valuation and it would be difficult to accept the value declared by the importer. Many instances were brought to the notice of the Revenue administration wherein the invoices produced in support of the declared values have been found to be manipulated. Hence, there was necessity to make a provision for rejection of Transaction Value even in the absence of situations particularised in Rule 4(2). Consequent to the WTO Valuation Committee decision 6.1, the Government of India introduced Rule 10A with effect from 19-2-1998. A careful reading of Rule 10A indicates that the proper officer should have reason to doub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ility. The adjudicating authority has placed reliance upon the declaration in imports effected by a group concern to be the price at which identical goods were imported for determination of value under rule 5 of the said Rules. It is the contention of Learned Counsel that such revision of assessable value cannot be based on imports effected after the date of impugned imports as that would fail the test of being 'contemporaneous.' We may have been inclined to agree with this contention had it not been for the information furnished by the overseas manufacturer indicating the price range at which the goods are sold. Rule 5 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 does accord flexibility to vary the declared p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....les, 1988 for determination of the assessable value, it would well have been within the scheme of law to confiscate the goods by resort to section 111 (m) of Customs Act, 1962. The fresh determination would have been a consequence of non-compliance with section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 and rule 4 (2) of the said rules arising from deliberate misrepresentation of the transaction value. 8. However, the scheme after incorporation of rule 10A in Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 presents an entirely different scenario. In this scheme, notwithstanding the declared value and the absence of evidence of a different transaction value, the provisions of rule 10A switches the onus to the importer and, in the ev....