TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 568
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of jackets and filed a Bill of Entry dated July 22, 2019 at Customs, ICD Patparganj, Delhi in which the value of the goods was declared as Rs. 1,01,78,142/-. The goods were purchased by the appellant from Xiamen, China, but they were supplied to the appellant by an overseas supplier of the appellant based in Hongkong. During investigation, it was observed that the goods were of better quality and the assessable value of the goods was higher than that declared by the appellant on comparison of the value with that of similar goods from the e-commerce sites. On being shown the value of the goods from the sites, the appellant in writing not only waived the issue of show cause notice and personal hearing, but also submitted a statement dated 23.08.2019 accepting the said value. This fact has been noticed by the Joint Commissioner in the order and the relevant portion of the order is reproduced below: "Waiver of show cause notice & personal hearing" 1, Sanjay Kumar Bhatia, Aged 45 years, S/o Shri Nand Kishore Bhatia, R/o 24/2B, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-1100018, Prop. of M/s Spartan International office at 17/52, 1st Floor, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi- 110018, declared as follows:- 1. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lower as compared to their actual value. He further accepted that actual assessable value of each type of imported goods are as under:- S. No. Description of the Items Declared Price Per Piece (UCD) Re-assessed unit price per Pcs. (USD) 1. Mens Polyester Wind Jacket 4 13 2. Ladies Cotton Woven wind Jacket 3.75 12 3. Mens PU Jacket 4.5 9 4. Mens Polyester Knitted Jacket 3.5 7.5 5. Kids Jacket 2.5 4 20.1 xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx 21. I find that on comparison of the contemporary data, the overall value of the goods is very low and hence the declared value does not appear to be the true transaction value of such goods under Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The same is liable to be rejected under Rule 12 and re-determined under Rule 5 of the CVR, 2007. Therefore, the goods were under-valued, the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty is imposable on the importer under Section 112 (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. 22. Further I find that the importer also admitted that the assessable value of the imported goods are on the lower side as compared to the declared value of the goods. The imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the Appellant agreed with valuation done by the department." (emphasis supplied) 5. Shri P.C. Patnaik, learned counsel assisted by Shri Ramesh Kumar Sahu, Advocate, appearing for the appellant submitted that the Joint Commissioner could not have re-determined the value solely on the basis of e-commerce site data. Learned counsel pointed out that Bill of Entry of contemporaneous import was not provided and that the statement was given by the appellant under duress. Learned counsel pointed out that there is a detailed procedure provided under the 2007 Valuation Rules for rejecting the declared value and re-determining it, but it was not resorted to by the Adjudicating Authority. Learned counsel also stated that duty on enhanced value was paid under duress. 6. Shri M.K. Shukla, learned authorized representative appearing for the department has, however, placed reliance upon the decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs, ICD Patparganj, Delhi vs. M/s Hanuman Prasad and Sons 2021-TIOL-CESTAT-Del and submitted that the impugned order does not call for any interference. Learned authorized representative submitted that once the appellant had waived the issuance of show ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of rule 3. (2) At the request of an importer, the proper officer, shall intimate the importer in writing the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to goods imported by such importer and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, before taking a final decision under sub-rule. Explanation.-(1) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that:- (i) This rule by itself does not provide a method for determination of value, it provides a mechanism and procedure for rejection of declared value in cases where there is reasonable doubt that the declared value does not represent the transaction value; where the declared value is rejected, the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially in accordance with rules 4 to 9. (ii) The declared value shall be accepted where the proper officer is satisfied about the truth and accuracy of the declared value after the said enquiry in consultation with the importers. (iii) The proper officer shall have the powers to raise doubts on the truth or accuracy of the declared value based on certain reasons which may include - (a) the significantly higher value at which identical or similar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iteria. (3) For the purposes of verification under subsection (2), the proper officer may require the importer, exporter or any other person to produce any document or information, whereby the duty leviable on the imported goods or export goods, as the case may be, can be ascertained and thereupon, the importer, exporter or such other person shall produce such document or furnish such information. (4) Where it is found on verification, examination or testing of the goods or otherwise that the self-assessment is not done correctly, the proper officer may, without prejudice to any other action which may be taken under this Act, re-assess the duty leviable on such goods. (5) Where any re-assessment done under subsection (4) is contrary to the self-assessment done by the importer or exporter and in cases other than those where the importer or exporter, as the case may be, confirms his acceptance of the said re-assessment in writing, the proper officer shall pass a speaking order on the reassessment, within fifteen days from the date of re-assessment of the bill of entry or the shipping bill, as the case may be." 13. It is seen from a perusal of section 17(4) of the Customs Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stoms Act requires a speaking order to be passed on the Bills of Entry, except in a case where the importer/exporter confirms the acceptance in writing. 16. It is no doubt true that the value of the imported goods shall be the transaction value of such goods when the buyer and the seller of goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration, but this is subject to such conditions as may be specified in the rules to be made in this behalf. The 2007 Valuation Rules have been framed. A perusal of rule 12(1) indicates that when the proper officer has reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the value of the imported goods, he may ask the importer to furnish further information. Rule 12(2) stipulates that it is only if an importer makes a request that the proper officer shall, before taking a final decision, intimate the importer in writing the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard. To remove all doubts, Explanation 1(iii)(a) provides that the proper officer can have doubts regarding the truth or accuracy of the declared value if the goods of a comparable nature were assessed at a significantly hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the 2007 Rules. What is meant by the expression grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared has been explained and elucidated in clause (iii) of Explanation appended to Rule 12 which sets out some of the conditions when the reason to doubt exists. The instances mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) are not exhaustive but are inclusive for there could be other instances when the proper officer could reasonably doubt the accuracy or truth of the value declared." 19. Despite the specific statement made by the appellant that it did not require any show cause notice to be issued or personal hearing being granted and that the value indicated by the Joint Commissioner was acceptable to it, it was sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the transaction value of the imported goods alone should have been treated to be the value of the goods, as provided for under rule 3(1) of the Valuation Rules, since none of the conditions stipulated in the proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 3 were attracted and in any case, if the declared value could not be determined under sub-rule (1) of rule 3, it was required to be determined by proceeding sequentially throu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad accepted the enhanced value. There was, therefore, no necessity for the assessing officer to determine the value in the manner provided for in rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Valuation Rules sequentially. 22. The aforesaid views find support from the decision of the Tribunal in Hanuman Prasad & Sons 2020 (12) TMI 1092-CESTAT, New Delhi. 23. In this connection, it would also be useful to refer to a decision of the Tribunal in Advanced Scan Support Technologies vs. Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur 2015 (326) ELT 185 (Tri.-Del), wherein the Tribunal, after making reference to the decisions of the Tribunal in Vikas Spinners vs. Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow 2001 (128) E.L.T. 143 (Tri.-Del.) and Guardian Plasticote Ltd. vs CC (Port), Kolkotta 2008 (223 E.L.T. 605 (Tri.- Kol.) , held that as the appellant therein had expressly given consent to the value proposed by the department and stated that it did not want any show cause notice or personal hearing, it was not necessary for the department to establish the valuation any further as the consented value became the declared transaction value requiring no further investigation or justification. Paragraph 5 of the decision is reproduced be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Special Attorney of the appellants who even signed an affirmation accepting the loaded value of the goods on the back of the Bill of Entry dated 7-5-1999. After loading of the value, the appellants produced the special import licence and paid the duty on the goods accordingly of Rs. 4,22,008/- on 19-5-1990. Having once accepted the loaded value of the goods and paid duty accordingly thereon without any protest or objection they are legally stopped from taking somersault and to deny the correctness of the same. There is nothing on record to suggest that the loaded value was accepted by them only for the purpose of clearance of the goods and that they reserved their right to challenge the same subsequently. They settled their duty liability once for all and paid the duty amount on the loaded value of the goods. The ratio of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sounds N. Images, (supra) is not at all attracted to the case of the appellants. The benefit of this ratio could be taken by them only if they had contested the loaded value at the time when it was done, but not now after having voluntarily accepted the correctness of loaded value of the goods as determined in the presenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t necessary for the department to determine the valuation as the consented value, in effect, became the declared transaction value. Further, once the appellant accepted the enhanced value it would not be open to the appellant to now contend that the procedure as contemplated under rule 12 of the 2007 Valuation Rules should have been complied with. 29. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the duty was paid by the appellant under protest and for this purpose the learned counsel pointed out that the customs duty was paid on the same date the letter was written by the appellant. 30. It is not possible to accept this submission of learned counsel for the appellant. It clearly transpires from the records that the appellant had accepted the value and had paid the excise duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) clearly noted this fact and observed that the appellant submitted the letter accepting the enhancement under protest after depositing the duty and the contention appeared to be an afterthought after payment of duty, redemption fine and penalty. Ofcourse, the letter could have been submitted on the same date the duty was paid. 31. The appellant had procured the goods from an o....