TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 870
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Goods Qty Weight Declared Value/Unit 1 24-dated 13.04.2012 (Manual Format) Cold Rolled Steel Sheet in Coils 119 1352.15 0 MT US$ 713 Per MT 2 6544627 dated 16.04.2012 Cold Rolled Steel Sheet in Coils 149 1660.35 0 MT US$ 713 Per MT 2.2 The Appraising Group - IV, while assessing the goods, enhanced the assessable value to US$ 722 PMT and US$721.64 PMT respectively, as against the declared value of US$713 Per MT. However, no speaking order to that effect was passed by Department. The appellants cleared the goods for home consumption after paying appropriate duty on the enhanced value as assessed by the Department, under protest. 2.3 Being aggrieved of the value loading, the appellants filed the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeals filed were dismissed as per the impugned order referred in para 1 above. 2.4 Aggrieved appellant have filed these appeals. 3.1 We have heard Ms Shamita Patel, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Manoj Kumar, Deputy Commissioner, Authorized Representative for the revenue. 3.2 Arguing for the appellant, learned Counsel submits: * Revenue has arbitrarily rejected the transaction value which as per Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order enhancing the value as declared by the importer as follows: "I have gone through all the relevant documents & submissions made by both the parties relating to the issues relating to the issue. The question is to decide whether the value loading by the Department is proper or not. 6. It is submitted by the appellants that they have entered into a contract with the supplier in 19.01.2012 backed by Irrevocable Letter of Credit dated 20.01.2012 and prices matching with London Metal Bulletin (L.M.B.) dated 23.01.2012 to 30.01.2012. Thus they contend that their price was unquestionable. But the respondents through their written submission vide letter F. No. S/26-Misc-69/2011-12 GR IV dated 15.05.2013 have refuted the appellant's contention, on the ground of the guidelines of the Directorate of Valuation that goods are valued as per the L.M.B. prices on or near the Bill of Lading date. In the instant cases the B/L date for both the Bills of entry was 26.03.2012. Hence, the value of goods was assessed as per the LMB issue dated 26.03.2012 at US$ 721.64 / 722. In context to the submission in respect of the appropriate assesseable value by the respondents, I put reliance on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the Commissioner (Appeal) cannot be upheld. In case of Agarwal Industries Ltd. [2011 (272) ELT 641 (SC)], Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: "11. On a plain reading of Sections 14(1) and 14(1A), it is clear that the value of any goods chargeable to ad valorem duty is deemed to be the price as referred to in Section 14(1) of the Act. Section 14(1) is a deeming provision as it talks of deemed value of such goods. The determination of such price has to be in accordance with the relevant rules and subject to the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Act. Conjointly read, both Section 14(1) of the Act and Rule 4 of CVR, 1988 provide that in the absence of any of the special circumstances indicated in Section 14(1) of the Act and particularized in Rule 4(2) of CVR 1988, the price paid or payable by the importer to the vendor, in the ordinary course of international trade and commerce, shall be taken to be the transaction value. In other words, save and except for the circumstances mentioned in proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4, the invoice price is to form the basis for determination of the transaction value. Nevertheless, if on the basis of some contemporaneous evidence, the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., according to Section 14(1), shall be deemed to be the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale, for delivery at the time and place and importation in the course of international trade. The word "ordinarily" implies the exclusion of special circumstances. This position is clarified by the last sentence in Section 14(1) which describes an "ordinary" sale as one where the seller or the buyer have no interest in the business of each other and price is the sole consideration for the sale or offer for sale. Therefore, when the above conditions regarding time, place and absence of special circumstances stand fulfilled, the price of imported goods shall be decided under Section 14(1A) read with the Rules framed thereunder. The said Rules are CVR, 1988. It was further held that in cases where the circumstances mentioned in Rules 4(2)(c) to (h) are not applicable, the Department is bound to assess the duty under transaction value. Therefore, unless the price actually paid for a particular transaction falls within the exceptions mentioned in Rules 4(2)(c) to (h), the Department is bound to assess the duty on the transaction value. It was further held that Ru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....determination of the assessable value for levy of custom duty. The transaction value as declared should normally be accepted and should be rejected only if the revenue has evidence to show that the transaction value do not reflect the actual transaction price in the course of international trade. Contemporaneous import at much higher transaction value, can be a reason for rejection of the declared transaction value. Interestingly revenue has not produced any evidence to that effect, on contrary appellants have produced the evidence before the Commissioner (Appeal) where in the same goods from the same supplier and shipped in the same vessel have been assessed accepting the transaction value which is less than that declared by the appellant. It is evident from the Bill of Entry No.6429986 dated 31-3 2012 filed by M/s Rajan Kumar & Bros Impex that the goods imported by them were also "Cold Rolled Steel Sheet in Coils (CRCA)" of DC01 grade and imported from the same supplier in the same vessel where assessed on the basis of declared transaction value of US$ 710/- Per MT, which is even less than the transaction value US$ 713 per MT declared by the appellant. We do not find any reason f....