TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 919
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mbai having only partially accepted their plea in challenge to original authority confirming proposals in notice, are taken up together for disposal owing to congruence of factual matrix in assessment of 'ball valves/check valves/cartridges' imported by both. 2. The value declared in bills of entry no. 850694/14.07.2008, no. 865021/06.10.2008, no. 869789/11.11.208, no. 878817/15.01.2009 and no. 889226/03.04.2009 filed by M/s Tisha International for import of 'ball valves/check valves/cartridges of brass' were doubted for correctness as the relevant 'tariff value' notified for import of 'brass scrap' under the authority of section 14(2) of Customs Act, 1962 during the said period was found to be much higher. M/s Tisha International was issued with show cause notice dated 12th April 2011 proposing rejection of declared value of US$ 211,360 under rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, re-determination at US$ 498,928.746 for recovery of differential duty under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962, along with interest thereon under section 28AB of Customs Act, 1962, and proposing confiscation of the said goods under section 111(m) of Customs Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asmuch as re-valuation, under the empowerment in rule 3(4) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 mandated sequential application of the rules following thereon which had been observed in its breach in a very casual manner. It was also submitted that corporate entities were not intended to be subjected to proposed penalties as section 112 stipulates acts of omission and commission which an artificial person is incapable of. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Century Metal Recycling Pvt Ltd v. Union of India [2019 (367) ELT 3 (SC)] to elaborate on this submission. It was further pointed out that re-determination of value on the basis of information available on the London Metal Exchange (LME) had been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi v. Prabhu Dayal Prem Chand [2010 (253) ELT 353 (SC)] . It was alleged that the reasons adduced for not having taken recourse rule 4, rule 5 and rule 7 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 are not tenable as the factual foundations were not evidenced. Furthermore, it was argued that the emphasis placed, b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 'tariff value' is not used for substitution or for computing but solely for the purpose of rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. It is also on record that the appellant had had adequate opportunity to displace the presumption of non-acceptability of the declared value but that opportunity had not been availed. Rejection of declared value in these circumstances, cannot be held as flawed. 7. Nonetheless, such rejection did not suffice for completion of adjudicatory responsibility. In terms of rule 3(4) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, the proper officer was further obliged to proceed sequentially through rule 4 to rule 9 thereof and take recourse to a particular rule only when an immediately preceding rule failed to apply. The discard of applicability of rule 4 and rule 5 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 by the 'proper officer' in both proceedings under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 was not founded on proper scrutiny of availability of such information but solely on account of disinclination, from point of view of practical convenience, to do so. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erally be limited to those cases where the buyer and seller are related, and the producer is prepared to supply to the proper officer the necessary costings and to provide facilities for any subsequent verification which may be necessary. 2. The "cost or value" referred to in clause (a) of rule 8 is to be determined on the basis of information relating to the production of the goods being valued supplied by or on behalf of the producer. It is to be based upon the commercial accounts of the producer, provided that such accounts are consistent with the generally accepted accounting principles applied in the country where the goods are produced. 3. The "cost or value" shall include the cost of elements specified in clauses (1)(a)(ii) and (1)(a)(iii) of rule 10. It shall also include the value, apportioned as appropriate under the provisions of the relevant note to rule 10, of any element specified in rule 10(l)(b) which has been supplied directly or indirectly by the buyer for use in connection with the production of the imported goods. The value of the elements specified in rule 10(1)(b)(iv) which are undertaken in India shall be included only to the extent that such elements are....