TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 712
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007. 1.2 It appears from the record that the goods were allowed for export pending determination of the value of exported goods by the said Valuation Committee. 1.3 It appears that the Valuation Committee, which was comprising Additional Commissioner (Export), Assistant Commissioner (Export), Assistant Commissioner (DBK), Superintendent (DBK) and Superintendent (Export), suggested re-fixing of the transaction value of the exported goods apparently after considering various factors like difference in the dates of exportation of similar goods, difference in commercial levels and quantity levels, difference in composition, quality and design between the goods to be assessed and the goods with which they were compared, difference in domestic freight and insurance charges, which was communicated to the exporter, as reflected at paragraph 3 of the Order-in-Original. In terms of this so re-fixed transaction value of the exported goods, the drawback amount was sanctioned and paid to the exporter. 2. It appears from the record that the appellant, feeling aggrieved by the re-fixing of the transaction va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the facts and circumstances of the case, the valuation re-fixed by the Valuation Committee is sustainable in the eye of law? 8. The submissions of the learned Advocate are summarized below: - • The declared transaction value was rejected without following the mandate of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007. Rule 8 mandates that in case of any doubt, the proper officer shall require the exporter to furnish further information, including such evidence, but here, no such rule was ever followed. • The order so passed, re-fixing the valuation, is therefore opposed to the principle underlying the statutory mandate. • In terms of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, transaction value would be the price actually paid or payable for the goods when exported from India and as per Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules, the value of export goods shall be the transaction value. There is no dispute entertained by the Revenue as to the receipt of export consideration in foreign exchange; there is also no dispute by the Revenue that it was the case of related party transaction, nor is there any allegation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xporter. (iii) The proper officer shall have the powers to raise doubts on the declared value based on certain reasons which may include - (a) the significant variation in value at which goods of like kind and quality exported at or about the same time in comparable quantities in a comparable commercial transaction were assessed. (b) the significantly higher value compared to the market value of goods of like kind and quality at the time of export. (c) the misdeclaration of goods in parameters such as description, quality, quantity, year of manufacture or production." (emphasis supplied by us, in bold) 10.2 Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 reads as under:- "Section 14. Valuation of goods. - (1) For the purposes of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), or any other law for the time being in force, the value of the imported goods and export goods shall be the transaction value of such 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 may be, for export ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xed, the duty shall be chargeable with reference to such tariff value. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section - (a) "rate of exchange" means the rate of exchange - (i) determined by the Board, or (ii) ascertained in such manner as the Board may direct, for the conversion of Indian currency into foreign currency or foreign currency into Indian currency; (b) "foreign currency" and ''Indian currency" have the meanings respectively assigned to them in clause (m) and clause (q) of section 2 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999).]" 11. We have considered the rival contentions and we have gone through the documents placed on record. 12.1 At the threshold, we do not see any justifiable reasons, in the first place, for the rejection of transaction value by the Revenue. When, admittedly, the transaction value is not rejected specifically, then it is for the Revenue to justify for not accepting the transaction value which is declared and secondly, what prompted the Revenue to refer to the Valuation Committee to refix the transaction value is also not forthcoming from the orders of the lower....