TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the above Bill of Entry, the consignment was put on hold for check on 26.5.2016. During examination, it was found that the following items were found to be contained in the container No. TGHU8311979/40". S.No Goods Declared Quantity Declared 1. Plastic Dustbin 24 Pcs. 2. MOP 80 Pcs. 3. Screw Driver 1000 Pcs. 4. Cup for UJ Cross 454 Grs. 5. UJ Cross 731 Doz. 6. Body of UJ Cross 246 Grs. 7. Drill Machine 5200 Pcs. 8. Shoe Polisher 180 Pcs. 9. Angle Grinder 1000 Pcs. 10. Drill Machine-1 600 Pcs. During the examination, it was found that the item declared as Drill machine-I (600 pcs.) was actually concrete Vibrator to two different sizes i.e. 300 Pcs of 1 meter and other 300 Pcs. of 1.5 meter on the ground of this mis-declaration in the description of the goods imported vide the said Bill of Entry the consignment were seized under the provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The samples were also drawn and the container was resealed with the Customs seal and handed over to the custodian under Panchnama dated 7.6.2016. During the investigation statement of Shri Tushar Dang....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing authority was required to follow the Valuation Rules sequentially, which has not been done in this case. The Rule 12 of CVR, 2007, only gives the assessing officer power to reject the transaction value if the same is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act. This rule does not mandate the acceptance of value other than as per Rule 4 to 9 of CVR, 2007. 7. Learned Advocate has also submitted that their case is fully covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner -2012 (122) ELT 321 (SC), wherein it is held that unless the price actually paid for the particular transactions fall within the exception under Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rule, the customs authorities are bound to accept the transaction value. It is submitted by the learned Advocate that the decision of Eicher Tractors although delivered in respect of old Valuation Rules of 1988, the provisions of Rules of Valuation under Customs Act, 1962 have not changed and remained the same after its substitution with effect from 10.10.2007. The concept of transaction value remains the same even after the enactment of Customs Valuation Ru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uded that the assessable value appeared to be low and the value was enhanced item wise which is as under; S.No. Goods Declared Quantity Declared Declared Value per pcs. Duty declared Re-determined value per pcs. Duty re-assessed Differential duty 1. Plastic Dustbin 24 pcs. 4 1964.30 4 1964.30 0.00 2. MOP 80 Pcs. 2 3274.00 2.5 4092.50 818.50 3. Screw Driver 1000 Pcs. 1.5 30693.90 3.5 71619.00 40925.10 4. Cup for UJ Cross 454 Grs. 7.5 62545.10 9 75054.20 12509.10 5. UJ Cross 731 Doz. 5.4 72508.20 6.5 87278.50 14770.30 6. Body of UJ Cross 246 Grs. 12 54224.20 Rs. 13.5 61002.20 6778.00 7. Drill machine 5200 Pcs. 1.87 178616.50 4 382067.30 203450.80 8. Shoe Polisher 180 Pcs. 8 2645.90 10.5 34716.70 8265.80 9. Angle Grinder 1000 Pcs. 2 36737.20 4.5 82658.80 45921.60 10. Drill machine-1 600 Pcs. 3.5 38574.10 300 Pcs Concrete Vibrator 1.5 Mts 10 55105.80 16531.70 11. On examination found 300 Pcs. Concrete Vibrator 1 Mtr &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were different. We therefore, find no reason to interfere with the resort to Rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 for not accepting the declared price. However, the law is also well-settled that revision of value for assessment must, necessarily, be the outcome of sequential application of the other rules in Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. We notice that no such exercise has been undertaken by the lower authorities, in adjudication as well as in appeal, and the process of enhancement of assessable value lacks the sanctity accorded by law. 6. In arriving at this conclusion, we place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court thus in Eicher Tractors Ltd., Haryana v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)]. 'Both Section 14(1) and Rule 4 provide that the price paid by an importer to the vendor in the ordinary course of commerce shall be taken to be the value in the absence of any of the special circumstances indicated in Section 14(1) and particularized in Rule 4(2). Rule 4(1) speaks of the transaction value. Utilization of the definite article ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of M/s Orient Sales (supra), the relevant paragraph of the said order is re-produced below: "6. We note that there were number of importers of Polyester Knitted Fabrics wherein the value was declared by them as US $ 1.6 per kg. The same was enhanced by the Customs authorities and the matters came up before the Tribunal. Tribunal in the case of A.R. Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. vide its Final Order No.70096-70097/2018 dated 05.01.2018 had dealt with an identical issue where the declared value of Polyester Knitted Fabrics at US $ 1.6 per kg. was enhanced by the Customs officers to US $ 2.89 per kg.. Tribunal by observing that at the time of clearance of the goods the value was enhanced to 1.73 per kg. by the officers themselves which was accepted by the importers and goods were accordingly cleared, Customs cannot subsequently further enhance the value by doing the piecemeal assessment as it amounts to review of their own earlier order. In any case Tribunal further observed that the issue is no longer res integra and the proceedings in respect of the other importers at Delhi-Faridabad stands concluded in favour of the assesses in respect of the same item. Though learned Advocate....