TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 17
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Investigations also revealed that there were different invoices for identical sets of items where the buyer and the seller were the same and each of the invoices had declared different values. Thus, based on the investigations and various statements, the original authority rejected the declared value in terms of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, and refixed the value at Rs.46,43,362/- as against declared value of Rs.30,96,158/-. The goods were held to be liable for confiscation in terms of section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and an option was given to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs.5,00,000/- and a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- was imposed on the appellant under section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962. This order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the appellant had manipulated invoice and mis-declared the actual value. Against this impugned order, the appeal is filed. 2. The learned counsel submits that large number of items were imported and the customs did not find any irregularity either in the description of the items or in the quantity of these items. It was further submitted that the goods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., and each item had different quantities as it is shown in the list given. There is no dispute about the description or quantity of the items declared. The value is also declared as per the commercial invoice filed along with the Bill of Entry. On verification, the only objection seems to be that the commercial invoice filed along with the Bill of Entry was from the supplier M/s. Masaki Corporation (Hong Kong) Ltd. but was signed by M/s. REEM International (Hong Kong) Ltd; based on which investigations were conducted and statements were taken. The appellant had placed on record a letter dated 17th December 2012 issued by M/s. Masaki Corporation (Hong Kong) Ltd., wherein it was stated that by mistake their sister concern M/s. REEM International (Hong Kong) Ltd.'s stamp was placed on the invoice generated by them. Emails recovered during investigation showed multiple invoices for the same set of goods where the buyer and supplier were one and the same. But there was nothing on record to prove that the amount paid to the buyer was more the value declared in the commercial invoice filed by the appellant along with the Bill of Entry. The statements have been retracted and the cross-e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the 1988 Rules. However, the interpretation given to Section 14(1) in Eicher Tractors Limited (supra) as to the meaning of the word 'payable' used therein would be still applicable. The word 'payable' used in Section 14(1) refers to the particular transaction and the payability in respect of 'the transaction'. It refers to the notional value, albeit the transaction value as declared in the bill of entry plus the amount which has to be added in terms of Rule 10 of the 2007 Rules. 11. The second proviso to Section 14(1) deals with different situations, enumerated under the three clauses; (i) when buyers and sellers are deemed to be related; (ii) when there is no sale, or buyers and sellers are related or the price is not the sole consideration for sale, etc. and (iii) where the proper officer has reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of such value. When the conditions specified in the second proviso are satisfied, the transactional value for the purpose of charging of Customs duty is to be made as per rules framed in this behalf. 12. Rules 3 and 12 of the 2007 Rules i.e., Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 were enacted and en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tatements do not suggest that that any extra payment was made to the buyer by the appellant in excess of what has been declared in their commercial value; therefore, the question of enhancing the value based on some random emails and statements without any corroboration has no evidentiary value. 8. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred decisions, we do not find any reason to uphold redetermination of the value. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, as per law. ( Order pronounced in Open Court on 27. 06. 2024. ) ============= Document 1 INVOICE NO MASAKI CORPORATION(HONG KONG)LTD ROOM 301 KAM ON BLDG 176AQUEEN'S ROAD CENTRAL CENTRAL HONG KONG SHIPMENT FROM :RMA-121113-116 COMMERCIAL INVOICE : HUANGZHOU, CHINA TO: M/S : SAASH ENTERPRISES, 41/786, CP UMMER ROAD, COCHIN ,, ERNAKULAM INDIA PIN: 682035 FM 380 Laminator FM650 Laminator DATE:13TH NOV 2012 TO:COCHIN, INDIA Ñ€Ñа 40 256.00 10240.00 T 9029 Wire Binding machine ;15 504.00 7560.00 Nos 40 81.60 T9027 Wire blading mahiene 3264.00 Y....