AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 1090
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion in rule 8/ rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988/ Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 for undertaking revision, and approved by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai Zone - I, that has had the effect of fastening duty liability of Rs. 70,82,799 [order-in-appeal no.183/MCH/AC/GR.I/2012 dated 5th March 2013] and Rs. 68,57,922 [order-in-appeal no.182/MCH/AC/GR.I/2012 dated 5th March 2013] and of Rs. 1,24,56,230 [order-in-appeal no.173/MCH/AC/GR.I/2012 dated 1st March 2013] and Rs. 1,21,35,537 [order-in-appeal no.174/MCH/AC/GR.I/2012 dated 1st March 2013] respectively in two cases each of M/s Ajay Exports and M/s Radheyshyam Ratanlal, Rs. 35,41,389 [order-in-appeal no.175/MCH/AC/GR.I/2012 dated 5th March 2013] on M/s Arushi Exports and Rs. 33,72,390 [order-in-appeal no. 309/MCH/AC/GR.I/2012 dated 10th May 2013] on M/s Tradex India Corporation Pvt Ltd. 3. It would appear that the four appellants had entered into four separate contracts, all dated 2nd April 2007, with different suppliers in Turkey for import of 510 MTs each of the said goods at US $ 1,700/- PMT. The goods, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....between the two regimes was the mandate of affinity with conceptual framework for adoption in assessment with prescription of actual payment or 'transaction value' as the 'gold standard' permitting deviation thereto under specified conditions of non-conformity that was transformed by featuring the erstwhile 'gold standard' as manifestation of the concept; consequently, the acceptability of the contracted price was no longer just a desirable prescription but, save in circumstances provided in the Rules, an inevitability thus aligning the statutory provisions with the Agreement on Customs Valuation (ACV) in entirety. 6. Earlier, by amending rule 3 with effect from 7th September 2001 and incorporating further qualifications for acceptance of contracted price as 'transaction value' of imported goods, rule 10A of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 acquired teeth for subjecting declared values to the test of conformity by placing importer on notice that responsibility for establishing acceptability was now shifted and, thereby, disengaging the assessment process from the rigour of compliance with the four conditions, then existing in proviso to rule....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lfa Textiles [2016 (331) ELT 104 (Tri. - Mumbai)], and in Topsia Estates Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (Import- Seaport), Chennai [2015 (330) ELT 799 (Tri. - Chennai)]. 9. It was also submitted that reliance placed on the prices culled from 'Public Ledger', drawn from information on shipments effected to countries in Europe, was not in conformity with Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. It was argued that the Tribunal had, in Commissioner of Customs (General & CFS) v. Radhey Shyam Ratanlal [2017 (358) ELT 965 (Tri. - Mumbai)], held that enhancement of value without undertaking detailed deliberations for rejection of declared value is improper. Further reliance was placed on the decision in Radha V Company v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2003 (156) ELT 810 (Tri. - Mumbai)], in Kanhaiyalal & Co v. Commissioner of Customs, Pune [2004 (163) ELT 33 (Tri. - Mumbai)] and in Dhirish International v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore [2005 (187) ELT 94 (Tri. - Bang)]. It was further contended that reliance placed upon the decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin v. Rabbani Exports [2011 (271) ELT 533 (Tri. - Chennai)] wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 which, since the amendments of September 2001, afforded latitude for rejection of declaration that had been circumscribed by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in re Eicher Tractors Ltd to identified circumstances therein. 12. Doubtlessly, with that amendment, the grounds for rejection of transaction price were not only substantially expanded to overcome the rigid framework of the existing conditions but also were couched generally enough to preclude similar judicial intervention henceforth; however, the principle of reasonable cause espoused in re Eicher Tractors Ltd may be discarded only at the cost of conferment of limitless empowerment, and more particularly from the unabashed resort to 'residual method' of valuation insensible to the obligation of justifying discard of the preceding modes definitively, on customs authorities tasked with valuation of imported goods. Hence the enunciation in re Eicher Tractors Ltd that, unlike Customs Valuation Rules, 1963, in the successor Rules 'Both Sections 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l evidence in the findings to sustain the contention of cartel operations impedes the consequence of rejection of declared value. Even if some suspicion of cartelization did cross the minds of customs authorities, the assessments were provisional and ample time was available for appropriate inquiry into facts to be incorporated in the notice preceding finalization of assessment. The situation obtaining in proviso to rule 3(2) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 has not retained that special consideration for being resorted to in consignments imported after 10th October 2007. The rejection of declared value is, thus, without authority of law. 14. Turning to the adoption of prices from 'Public Ledger', a survey of the several alternatives in Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 and of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 do not admit to such option. Rule 8 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 and rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, titled as the 'residual method', envisages determination....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....determination of value, under the Valuation Rules, comprises Rules 3 to 8. ... What has been broadly laid down under Clause (i) of Rule 3 appears in specific terms under Rule 4(1).... If the facts of a given case will attract any of those exceptions, the case will go out of the purview of Rule 4(1) and, in that case, the transaction value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially through Rules 5 to 8 as prescribed under Clause (ii) of Rule 3. Rule 8 is the residuary provision under this scheme. Rule 9 provides for certain additions to the price actually paid or payable, to arrive at the assessable value. Rule 10 casts an obligation on the importer to declare the details of the value of the goods accurately as also to furnish such document or information as may be required by the proper officer for determination of the assessable value...... The above rule is a rule of procedure, which enables the proper officer to decide as to whether he can accept the declared value of the goods under Rule 4(1) or should proceed sequentially through Rules 5 to 8 for arriving at the value of the goods. If, even after considering the information documents/evidence furnished by the importer, ....