TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1775
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....) Plot No. 68, 3rd Floor, Block No. 5, W.E.A. Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110 005 27.07.2018 20.09.2018 01.10.2019 2. M/s. Suich Industries Pvt. Ltd., Haridwar, Uttarakhand is engaged in import having IEC No. 0509059791. On the basis of an intelligence, the Department observed that the said importer is importing goods in violation of the provision of Customs Act, 1962. On the basis thereof, two of the consignments imported at Air Cargo Complex, IGI Airport, New Delhi by the appellant vide Bill of Entry No. 5195795 dated 13.02.2018 and Bill of Entry No. 5251155 dated 17.02.2018 were intercepted. The consignments were examined by Customs officers on 16.02.2018 and 20.02.2018 respectively and they were found consisting of different parts and accessories of mobile handsets, i.e. LCD panel, LCD Display, PCBA, Speakers, battery, LCD, Antennas, etc. alongwith IMEI stickers. It was also revealed by MSAI that imported IMEI numbers belonged to manufacturer of M/s. Shenzhen Yifang Communications Technology Co., China for the brand name 'KGTEL'. Appellants however, were engaged in manufacture of strawberry and Crona brand of low cost mobile phones only. After making proper investigat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 7 for determination of the value. Imposition of penalty is alleged to be wrong and quantum as exorbitant. The redemption fine of Rs. 30 Lakhs is also alleged to be grossly dis-proportionate mainly on the grounds that the goods actually are not liable to be confiscated. The Order under challenge is prayed to be set aside. Three of the Appeals are accordingly prayed to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned Authorised Representative has submitted that the goods were intercepted on the basis of doubt. On proper examination, those were found to be of superior quality. The findings of investigation have duly been appreciated by the adjudicating authorities below. The appellant was found importing the goods of another brand of superior quality at the prices of the brand of inferior quality. The value has rightly been re-determined in accordance of Rule 7 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 (CVR) after it was observed to not to be true transaction value under provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with provisions of CVR, 2007. Since, the import was in absolute violation of the provisions of the Customs Act, the confiscation has rightly been announced. The Commissioner(Appeals)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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 transaction value; where the declared value is rejected, the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially in accordance with rules 4 to 9." Thus, in case, the transaction value as mentioned in Rule 3 is doubted or proposed to be rejected, the value has to be determined in accordance of Rule 4 to 9 of the CVR. Since the goods appeared to be of superior quality and from th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tation. (3) (a) If neither the imported goods nor identical nor similar imported goods are sold in India in the condition as imported, then, the value shall be based on the unit price at which the imported goods, after further processing, are sold in the greatest aggregate quantity to persons who are not related to the seller in India. (b) In such determination, due allowance shall be made for the value added by processing and the deductions provided for in items (i) to (iii) of sub-rule (1)." It stands clear that this Rule requires a specific procedure as has to be followed. We observe that report dated 09.04.2018 is silent about proper application of this Rule. There is no mention of unit price at which the imported goods or identical or similar imported goods are sold. There is no whisper about deductions as to be made prior arriving at the re-determined value. Thus, we are of the opinion that the data on which is based the valuer's report need to be re-examined and it has to be decided afresh as to whether Rules 4-7 CVR, 2007 have duly been complied with while re-determining the price. Hence, the mater need to be remanded back. (ii) Absolute Confiscation of Intercepted ....