TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 953
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d and found that some undeclared items such as (i) Caimei Extra Care Styling Gel and (ii) Enzo brand Having a Type Moving etc. which require "No Objection Certificate" from the Assistant Drug Controller (ADC). As per the department, the matter was subsequently referred to SIIB and goods were examined 100% by the officers of SIIB. It is the case of the department that the items mentioned in the said Table 02 from S. No. 1 to 6 require NOC from the Assistant Drug Controller as they fall under the category of 'cosmetics' and require pre-registration with the Assistant Drug Controller under Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and other Allied Rules made thereunder, but the appellant was not having the said certificate/registration with ADC. 3. It is the case of the department that in order to ascertain the assessable value, during the examination proceeding, market enquiry was conducted on 22.11.2016. On the basis of the said market enquiry, value of items mentioned in S. No. 1 to 6 requiring NOC from Additional Drug Controller, value has been ascertained at Rs. 52,57,183/- and other items has been re-determined as Rs. 22,65,922/-. Accordingly, duty has been re-determined in respect of item....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....07 read with section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and requires to be re-determined under Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of the imported goods) Rules, 2007 as Rs. 75,23,105/-(including the assessable value of Rs. 52,57,183/- of Cosmetics) on the basis of market enquiry conducted in the matter as detailed above, which was accepted by the importer in his voluntary statement dated 28.11.2016 recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) the goods, i.e. cosmetics (as mentioned in Sr. No. 1 to 6 above) having re-determined value of Rs. 52,57,183/- appear liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) read with section (l) of the Customs Act, 1962 as the importer is neither registered with CDSCO (Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation) nor would he be able to produce any no objection certificate from Assistant Drug Controller (ADC); (iii) the remaining goods as mentioned in Sr. No. 7 to 47 having re-determined value of Rs. 22,65,922/- appear liable for confiscation under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. (iv) the goods (sr. No. 7 to 47) have been imported by mis-declaring the value thereof with an intent to evade pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rted by the appellant were not rare items but are items of regular import and are frequently imported. Thus, the contention of the Department that no import data was available is surprising and untenable. Further, the Adjudicating Authority have not mentioned any effort made for finding data relating to contemporaneous import. It is settled law that the rejection of transaction value and enhancement of assessable value should be based on some cogent evidence and further the value should be re-determined in accordance with the rules of valuation. The allegation of under valuation is made arbitrarily and the declared value rejected, without resorting to the provision of Section 14 r/w the rules thereunder. Further, the Adjudicating Authority failed to appreciate that the acceptance for the re-determination of value by the appellant was only to minimise the demurrage and detention charges and to get the goods cleared, so as to minimise the financial loss. Such admission under pressure and undue influence does not tantamount for admission of revaluation by way of free will and consent. It was further urged that the order of confiscation and imposing the redemption fine is bad. Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elinquished title to the said goods, thus the order of confiscation and penalty is bad with respect to these items. 14. It is further urged that Section 14 of the Customs Act provides that the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value of the goods, that is to say, the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India for delivery at the time and place of importation, or as the case maybe, for export from India for delivery at the time and place of exportation, where the buyer and seller of the goods are not related and price is the sole consideration for the same, subject to such other conditions as may be specified in the rules made in this behalf. It is further urged that the court below have erred in rejecting the transaction value without recording any reasons for rejection of the same. Further, it is not the case of Revenue that the appellant (importer) have paid any amount over and above the invoice value of the goods. Further, the appellant have declared the proper transaction value of the goods in the Bill of Entry. Further, once the declared value is rejected in accordance with law, then the Adjudicating Authority is required to pro....