TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1093
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 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 Customs Act, 1962. (iv) I impose a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- along ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 notice and order in original. ix. Even the third party e-mails referred were of July 2007 and August 2008 whereas the imports were made by them in March....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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, which is crucial in arriving at the value of the goods is deliberate. The Noticee has in fact, not refuted this sale contract with any evidence, but just held it to be unsubstantiated. It is found that there is hu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 invariable and is subject to certain exceptions specified in Rule 4(2) namely : (a) there are no restrictions as to the disposition or use of the goods by the buyer other than restrictions which - (i) are imposed or required by la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 cannot be determined under any of these provisions, the value is required to be determined under Rule 8 "using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of these rules and sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and on the basis of data available in India." If the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 denied under Section 14. It appears from the judgment that a distinction was drawn between a discounted price special to a particular customer and discounts available to all customers. 21.As already noted all these cases dealt with imports made prior to the coming into force of the Rules in 1988. Now the 'special considerations' are detailed stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oper 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 being heard, before taking a final decision under sub-rule (1). Explanation.- (1) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that:- (i) This rule by itself does not provide a method for determination of value, it provides a mechanism and procedure for rejection of declared value in cases where there is reasonable doubt that the declared value does not represent the transactio....