TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 138
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the declared value. The Ld. Commissioenr(Appeals) examined the issue in detail and held that the transaction value cannot be rejected without any evidence or reasons. Therefore, he rejected the enhancement of declared value by the respondent. Aggrieved from the said order, the Revenue is before us. 3. The Ld.AR for the department supported the grounds of appeal and submitted that as the Proper Officer has reasons to doubt the truth or accuracy of the value of declared imported goods, the Proper Officer may ask the importer for such goods to furnish further information including documents or other evidences and after receiving such information and in the absence of any response given by the importer, the Proper Officer was having reasonable doubt and accordingly enhanced the declared value. Therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside. 4. None appeared on behalf of the respondent, nor any request for adjournment has been received. On going through the records placed before us, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage, therefore, appeal was taken up for disposal. 5. We find that after filing the Bills of Entry declaring the value of the imported go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ired to be issued within 15 days thereof as per Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. There is no dispute that no speaking order was passed in this case. In the circumstances, in absence of a valid speaking order as per Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 for re-assessment made by the department contrary to appellant's claim, re-assessment is liable to be set aside. Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in the matter of M/s. Sigma Power Products Pvt. Ltd. [2017-TIOL-597-HC-KOL-CUS] held as under: "The order made by the proper officer on the bills of entry in changing the classification and value enhancement is an order of re-assessment attracting the provisions of sub section (5) of section 17 of the Act as urged by the appellant what who appears to be the case from the effidavit filed by the Revenue. Hence, the conclusion has to be that the proper officer was required to pass a speaking order on the re-assessment within 15 days of the re-assessment of the bills of entry. No speaking order was passed. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation to set aside the re assessment. In view of the aforesaid, there is no scope for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 of accuracy of the declared value based on certain reasons which may include - (a) the significantly higher value at which identical or similar goods imported at or about the same time in comparable quantities in a comparable commercial transaction were assessed; ( b) the sale involves an abnormal discount or ebnormal reduction from the ordinary competitive price, (c) the sale involves special discounts limited to exclusive agents, (d) the misdeclaration of goods in parameters such as description, quality, quantity, country of origin, year of manufacture or production, (e) the non declaration of parameters such as brand, grade, specifications that have relevance to value; (f) the fraudulent or manipulated documents." 11. The appellant declared the transaction value and there is nothing on record to suggest that the transaction value declared by the appellant was not the price actuall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....determined under Rule 7 by a process of deduction in the manner provided therein. If this is not possible the value is to be computed under Rule 7A. When value of the imported goods cannot be determined under any of these provisions, the value is required to be determined under Rule & "using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of these rules and sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and on the basis of data available in India. If the phrase the transaction value used in Rule & were not limited to the particular transaction then the other Rules which refer to other transactions and data would become redundant. 14. It is only when the transaction volue under Rule & is rejected, then under Rule 3(i) the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially through Rules 5 to 8 of the Rules Conversely if the transaction value con be determined under Rule 4(1) and does not foll under any of the exceptions in Rule 4/2), there is no question of determining the value under the subsequent Rules. 15. The Assistant Collector in this case determined the value of the imported goods under Rule 8. The question is whether he shou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SS 0.448 per meter. Subsequently in respect of bill of entry No. 389742 enhancement has been made from 0.30 US $ to 0.448 stating that the party has already Imported the same item vide bill of entry No. 387940 dated 01-11-2004. We find this nating is misleading. For the consignment relating to the bill of entry dated 1-11-2004 the value was enhanced only by the Department. It is not a case of the respondent importing at the assessed value of 448 US $. Learned DR produced NIDB data relating to the year 2005 and claimed that imports had taken place at prices substantially higher the prices declared by the respondent. He was not able to specifically indicate any specific contemporaneous import price relating to the relevant period based on which the prices were enhanced. We also find that certain ad hoc and arbitrary enhancements to the extent of 40 cent per meter etc. have been adopted. Such an enhancement has been made apparently without disclosing the proposal for enhancement and seeking acceptance of the some from the respondent, in none of the bill of entries we find any endorsement to the fact that the respondent or the representative have accepted such enhancement in the absenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... i. C. C. vs KD Exports 2008 (227) ELT494 (Tri-Delhi). ii. C. C. vs D M International 2013 (289) ELT 169 (Tri-Delhi). iii. C. C. vs Marble Art 2013 (289) ELT 346 (Tri-Delhi). iv. C. C. vs Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (295) ELT 726 (Tri-Delhi). v. C. C. vs D M International 2013 (297) ELT 450 (Tri-Delhi). vi. Topsia Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs C. C. (IMPORT-SEAPORT), Chennai 2015 (330) ELT 799 (Tri-Chennai). vii. C. C., New Delhi vs Virasat Electronics, 2015 (317) E.LT. 295 (Tri. Del.). viii. C. C. vs Intiling Explosive 2008 (224) ELT 343 (SC). ix. C. C. vs South India Television 2007 (214) ELT 3(SC). 17. In the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI Versus DM INTERNATIONAL reported in 2013 (289) E.L.T. 169 (Tri. - Del.) the following has been held: "5. We find that there is no dispute that the customs has power to reject the transaction value and enhance the assessable value in terms of Customs Valuation Rules. However, such rejection of transaction value and enhancement of assessable value has to be on the basis of some evidences on record. Contemporaneous imports have to be consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the appellant, or any other importer; does not preclude him from filing an appeal against this arbitrary enhancement of value, and claiming refund on the basis of proper assessment. 21. I observe that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the matter of Dunlop India vs. UOI (1983(13) ELT 1566 (SC)) has held that "there is no estoppels in low against party in taxation matter. a party in order to clear the goods for Customs, has given the classification in accordance with the wishes of the authorities or even under some misapprehension, and if the low allows it a right to ask for refund on proper appraisement and which is actually applied for, the party cannot be stopped from making such application and ask for such refund." 22. This was also followed in Laxmi Colour Labs vs. CC (1992(62) ELT 613 (Tri.) and in CC vs. International Exports (1992 (62) ELT 608 (Tri). The enhanced value accepted by some importers cannot be made basis to enhance the value for subsequent importers, unless there are contemporaneous import data available and transaction value is rejected as per Valuation Rules. 23. The assessing authority has failed to prove that th....