TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1093
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....24/- of the goods imported by M/s Sumeet Exports India, Ludhiana and Shri Sumeet Thapar, active partner of the noticee firm under B/E No 831542 dated 26.03.2009 be rejected in terms of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules,2007, read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. I order the B/E to be assessed at Rs. 30,57,199/- in terms of the provisions of said rules as discussed. (ii) I order the confiscation of the imported goods i.e. 12000 Kgs dye stuff of Chinese origin seized vide DRI F No 856(12)/LDH/2009/423 dated 09.10.2009 having revised assessable value of Rs. 30,57,199/- in terms of Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground of suppression and misdeclaration of actual transaction value thereof. However, I give the option to the importer to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) under Section 125 of the Custom Act, 1962. (iii) I order duty amount of Rs. 2,41,673/- short paid by the importer at the time of import be recovered from the importer jointly and severally along with interest in terms of provisions of Section 28 (1) read with Section 28AB of the Cust....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eclared by them under Rule 12 of the Custom Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 was erroneous and done without any justification. ii. The e-mails and documents relied upon for alleging misdeclaration of value were not pertaining to them. iii. The values indicated in the B/E was identical with the same as in sale contract and not as held by the authorities below. iv. E-mail correspondences of other importers cannot be basis for charging them with mis declaration. v. The declared value by them compared favorably with the contemporaneous imports as per NIDB data. vi. The value has been determined under rule 9, without sequential application of the rules 4 to 9 in case transaction value declared was to be rejected. vii. Reason for enhancement as per the order of authorities below is that value declared, is lower than the value of identical goods supplied by the other suppliers. viii. The value declared by them as per the sale contract and supported by other documentary evidences. The sale contract gave the complete description of the goods and the same has been made the basis in the show cause n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10 to the Show Cause Notice has not refuted these emails and the price lists of the suppliers. It is seen that other Importers, M/s. Universal Impex also has been importing the same goods from the same country of origin as the correspondence with the suppliers shows that the goods are deliberately undervalued to evade Customs duty. The noticee's advocate, in para 7 of the reply to the Show Cause Notice has stated that the documents relied upon in the Notice were not recovered from his client's premises and therefore cannot be relied upon in terms of Section 139 of the Customs Act. This presumption doesn't hold good since Section 139 ibid does not debar any other material, not taken from the premises of the Noticees from being relied upon. The notice has, knowingly, not declared the composition of goods, colour index and strength of dyes etc. in the Bill of Entry only to avoid its comparison with other goods being imported at the relevant time. But it is seen that the sale contract dated 09.01.09 between M/s. Sumeet Exports and the supplier M/s. Hangzhou Jihua Import and Export Company Ltd contains these details. This concealment of facts in the Bill of Entry, whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est in the business of each other and the price is the sole consideration for the sale..........". Subject to these three conditions laid down in Section 14(1) of time, place and absence of special circumstances, the price of imported goods is to be determined under Section 14(1A) in accordance with the rules framed in this behalf. 7.The rules which have been framed are the Customs, Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. The rules came into force on 16th August, 1988. Under Rule 3(i) "the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value". "Transaction value"' has been defined in Rule 2(f) as meaning the value determined in accordance with Rule 4. Rule 4(1) in turn states : "The transaction value of imported goods shall be the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India, adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of these rules." 8.Reading Rule 3(i) and Rule 4(1) together, it is clear that a mandate has been cast on the authorities to accept the price actually paid or payable for the goods in respect of the goods under assessment as the transaction value. But the mandate is not i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duty is the price actually paid for the particular transaction, unless of course the price is unacceptable for the reasons set out in Rule 4(2). "Payable" in the context of the language of Rule 4(1) must, therefore, be read as referring to "the particular transaction" and payability in respect of the transaction envisages a situation where payment of price may be deferred. 13.That Rule 4 is limited to the transaction in question is also supported by the provisions of the other Rules each of which provide for alternate modes of valuation and allow evidence of value of goods other than those under assessment to be the basis of the assessable value. Thus, Rule 5 allows for the transaction value to be determined on the basis of identical goods imported into India at the same time; Rule 6 allows for the transaction value to be determined on the value of similar goods imported into India at the same time as the subject goods. Where there are no contemporaneous imports into India, the value is to be determined under Rule 7 by a process of deduction in the manner provided therein. If this is not possible the value is to be computed under Rule 7A. When value of the imported goods c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d wrongly mis-described the imported goods and sought to defraud the Revenue by attempting to surreptitiously import items prohibited under the import policy. It was found that there was justification, in the circumstances, for rejecting the price shown in the invoice. The transaction value having been rejected, assessment of value was made on the basis of the price list of the foreign vendor. 19.Both the decisions Padia Sales Corporation and Sharp Business Machines Pvt. Ltd. were distinguished subsequently in Mirah Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 3. As the facts of this case are somewhat similar to the case before us, it is dealt with in some detail. 20. Mirah Exports Pvt. Ltd. along with other importers had imported bearings at high rates of discount. The declared value was rejected by the Customs authorities, on the basis of the price list of the vendors. This Court set aside the decision of the respondent authorities accepting the argument that a discount is a recognised feature of international trade practice and that as long as those discounts are uniformly available to all and based on logical commercial bases, they cannot be de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etc. 5.5 Neither the adjudicating authority or Commissioner (Appeal), have pointed to such special circumstance warranting the rejection of the declared transaction value by the Appellant on Bill of Entry. Rule 12 of Customs valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 is reproduced below: "12. Rejection of declared value. - (1) When the proper officer has reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to any imported goods, he may ask the importer of such goods to furnish further information including documents or other evidence and if, after receiving such further information, or in the absence of a response of such importer, the proper officer still has reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the value so declared, it shall be deemed that the transaction value of such imported goods cannot be determined under the provisions of sub-rule (1) of rule 3. (2) At the request of an importer, the proper officer, shall intimate the importer in writing the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to goods imported by such importer and provide a reasonable opportunity of b....