TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1107
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Customs Valuation Rules and the value was determined as per best judgment assessment under Rule 9 adopting the value of similar goods imported within reasonable period of time. Bills of entry was rejected under Rule 12 for Violation Rules read with Section 14 of the Act, and the goods were assessed under Rules 9 as per the contemporaneous import of similar goods. The department therefore imposed RF and sought differential duty as well as imposed penalty under Section 114A from the appellant. Aggrieved by the order of lower authorities appellants have filed the present appeal. 2. Learned Advocate for the party relied upon the following propositions: * "Neither NIDB data nor DGOV Circular can be a basis for enhancement of value, and they relied on the case law of CC (Import), Nhava Sheva vs Bharathi Rubber Lining & Allied Services P Ltd - 2013 (287) ELT 124(Tri- Mum); Commr. of Cus., New Delhi Vs Nath International - 2013 (289) ELT 305(Tri.Del); Om Drishian International Ltd Vs Commr. of C.Ex Delhi-IV -2015 (315) ELT 441 (Tri.Del) and Topsia Estates P Ltd Vs Commr. Of Customs(Imp-Seaport), Chennai-2015 (330) ELT 799 (Tri.Chennai)." 2.1 Further they also sought to rely on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion has to be carried out on the basis of material available on record. In the present case, though the value was enhanced on the basis of NIDB data but no bill of entry of contemporaneous import was brought on record. It is also not established that price of which goods adopted by the customs in the present case is of the same quality, quantity and origin. Therefore, the NIDB data is also of no basis and relevant to the present case. Even the customs authorities who are abide by the DGOV Circular which categorically states that market enquiry has to be conducted. In the present case, there is nothing on record that customs authorities have properly conducted a market enquiry. There is no report such as Panchanama of market enquiry on record nor was any report provided to the appellant. The Revenue only relied on one Bill which is neither signed nor authenticated hence, the same cannot be relied as market survey report. There is no case of the Revenue that the appellant have made a payment over and above the value declared in their bills of entry/invoices. In similar case, this Tribunal time and again has taken a view that enhancement of the value without proper evidence is not co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ale. Therefore, what has to be seen by the Department is the value or cost of the imported goods at the time of importation, i.e., at the time when the goods reaches the customs barrier. Therefore, the invoice price is not sacrosanct. However, before rejecting the invoice price the Department has to give cogent reasons for such rejection. This is because the invoice price forms the basis of the transaction value. Therefore, before rejecting the transaction value as incorrect or unacceptable, the Department has to find out whether there are any imports of identical goods or similar goods at a higher price at around the same time. Unless the evidence is gathered in that regard, the question of importing Section 14(1A) does not arise. In the absence of such evidence, invoice price has to be accepted as the transaction value. Invoice is the evidence of value. Casting suspicion on invoice produced by the importer is not sufficient to reject it as evidence of value of imported goods. Under-valuation has to be proved. If the charge of under-valuation cannot be supported either by evidence or information about comparable imports, the benefit of doubt must go to the importer. If the Departm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailed investigations to be carried out by Hong Kong Customs Department. The Indian Commission has forwarded the export declarations in original to the Customs Department in India. One such letter is dated 19-9-1996. In the present case, the importer has alleged that the original declarations were with the Department. That certain portions of the originals were not shown to the importer despite the importer calling upon the adjudicating authority to do so. Further, by way of Interlocutory Application No. 4 in the present civil appeal, an application was moved by the importer calling upon the Department to produce the original declaration in the Court. No reply has been filed to the said I.A. till date. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Department had erred in rejecting the invoice submitted by the importer herein as incorrect. Further, the Department received from the Hong Kong supplier a Fax message dated 22-7-1996. That was produced before the Commissioner. In that message, he had explained that the manufacturer of the impugned goods was getting export rebates and, therefore, it is possible that the manufacturer had over-invoiced the price in order to claim more re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of value of imported goods, this Tribunal in the case of Selection Enterprises vs. CC, Chennai (supra) passed the following order:- "4. We have given a careful consideration to the submissions made by the appellants and the revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the original order on the ground that the department has followed the correct method in accordance with the valuation rules in enhancing the CIF value of the imported goods. The original authority in para 8 of his order dated 24-1-2002, has stated the manner of arriving at the assessable value of the imported goods. According to him the value declared by the appellants was very low. Hence the same could not be accepted as per rule 4 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988. Since the goods imported are of various countries origin and brand and no identical imports have been noticed during the relevant period, the value could not be determined under Rule 5 and 6 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules. No data was available for duty paid imports or for condition of value of goods under Rules 7 and 7A. The importer has also failed to furnish the manufacturers inputs in terms of Rule 10A. Hence the values have to be de....