TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 447
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 5690 121545 707609 265767 441842 757438303.12.14 113400 2106972 210697 278120 9776 4888 104418 607900 188271 419629 769674915.12.14 132000 2452560 245256 323738 11380 5690 121545 707609 218801 488808 779813724.12.14 132900 2469282 246928 325945 11457 5729 122374 712433 225051 487382 79158366.1.15 135000 2508300 250830 331096 11639 5819 124307 723691 228429 495262 Total 942900 11989674 119896 1582637 55632 27816 594189 3459242 1126319 2332923 Sumit Enterprises (Table -1) S. No B/E No. Date Qty Declared A.V. A.V. at Rs. 18.58 per pc Duty paid Differential duty 1 6788935 17.03.2014 135000 998082 2508300 287965 435726 2 7012082 09.10.2014 140700 1106658 2614206 319291 434956 3 7064003 14.10.2014 135000 1104299 2508300 318610 405081 4 7420776 18.11.2014 136500 1024061 2536170 295460 436272 5 7627985 08.12. 2014 126000 954450 2341080 275376 400069 6 7817103 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... through the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. We find that the assessable value of the goods i.e. PU Belts is enhanced by the customs authorities mainly on the basis of DGOV Circular, which is not an authority to dispute the valuation of the imported goods. It is necessary that if there is any doubt, an investigation has to be carried out on the basis of material available on record. In the present case, though the value was enhanced on the basis of NIDB data but no bill of entry of contemporaneous import was brought on record. It is also not established that price of which goods adopted by the customs in the present case is of the same quality, quantity and origin. Therefore, the NIDB data is also of no basis and relevant to the present case. Even the customs authorities who are abide by the DGOV Circular which categorically states that market enquiry has to be conducted. In the present case, there is nothing on record that customs authorities have properly conducted a market enquiry. There is no report such as Panchanama of market enquiry on record nor was any report provided to the appellant. The Revenue only relied on one Bill which is neither signed nor a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lue. The value is deemed to be the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale, for delivery at the time and place of importation in the course of international trade where the seller and the buyer have no interest in the business of each other and the price is the sole consideration for the sale or for offer for sale. Therefore, what has to be seen by the Department is the value or cost of the imported goods at the time of importation, i.e., at the time when the goods reaches the customs barrier. Therefore, the invoice price is not sacrosanct. However, before rejecting the invoice price the Department has to give cogent reasons for such rejection. This is because the invoice price forms the basis of the transaction value. Therefore, before rejecting the transaction value as incorrect or unacceptable, the Department has to find out whether there are any imports of identical goods or similar goods at a higher price at around the same time. Unless the evidence is gathered in that regard, the question of importing Section 14(1A) does not arise. In the absence of such evidence, invoice price has to be accepted as the transaction value. Invoice is the evidence of v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the same period of importation. This evidence has not been rebutted by the Department. Further, in the present case, the Department has relied upon export declaration made by the foreign supplier in Hong Kong. In this connection, we find that letters were addressed by the Department to the Indian Commission which, in turn, requested detailed investigations to be carried out by Hong Kong Customs Department. The Indian Commission has forwarded the export declarations in original to the Customs Department in India. One such letter is dated 19-9-1996. In the present case, the importer has alleged that the original declarations were with the Department. That certain portions of the originals were not shown to the importer despite the importer calling upon the adjudicating authority to do so. Further, by way of Interlocutory Application No. 4 in the present civil appeal, an application was moved by the importer calling upon the Department to produce the original declaration in the Court. No reply has been filed to the said I.A. till date. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Department had erred in rejecting the invoice submitted by the importer herein as incorrect. Furthe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Department to invoke Rule 8 without sequentially complying with Rules 5, 6 and 7 even in cases where the transaction value is to be rejected under Rule 4. In the present case, the show cause notice indicates that the Department had invoked Rule 8 without complying with the earlier rules." 5. On the issue of market enquiry, for the purpose of value of imported goods, this Tribunal in the case of Selection Enterprises vs. CC, Chennai (supra) passed the following order:- "4. We have given a careful consideration to the submissions made by the appellants and the revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the original order on the ground that the department has followed the correct method in accordance with the valuation rules in enhancing the CIF value of the imported goods. The original authority in para 8 of his order dated 24-1-2002, has stated the manner of arriving at the assessable value of the imported goods. According to him the value declared by the appellants was very low. Hence the same could not be accepted as per rule 4 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988. Since the goods imported are of various countries origin and brand and no identical imports have b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hanced the value of the bearings based upon the Circular No. S/26-Misc.-2195/2005 VA, dated 24-9-2008 issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House, Nhava Sheva. Vide the said Circular, the value of different sizes of Chinese ball bearings was mentioned. Inasmuch as the said Circular was issued on the basis of average cost of raw material in the international market as well as on the basis of inputs provided by various importers, associations of manufacturers and traders, All India ball bearings, merchant associations, the floor prices were fixed accordingly. Having gone through the impugned orders, we find that the Revenue has solely relied upon the said Circular issued by the Commissioner of Customs. There is no other evidence to reject the transaction value. Only provision for fixing certain assessable value for the purpose of assessment is Section 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 under which the Central Government by a notification fixes the tariff values on which the imported goods are to be assessed. Such assessable values cannot be fixed by the assessing officer on their own." 6. It is further observed that on the same or approximately same ....