TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 1198
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalty. The Additional Commissioner also ordered for confiscation of the goods with option to the appellant to redeem on payment of redemption fine. 2. The appellants filed Bills of Entry for import and cleared the goods mentioned as "Bucket Tooth (parts of Earth Moving Machine)" at a declared value of Rs. 48.65 per kg. On being shown contemporaneous data of identical goods, the appellants agreed in writing to pay the differential duty on the proposed enhanced value of Rs. 75 per kg and also agreed to pay fine and penalty that may be imposed. The appellants also stated that they did not require issuance of show cause notices or personal hearing, nor they desired a speaking order to be passed on re-assessment of the Bills of Entry. One such undertaking contained in the letter dated 26.09.2018 submitted by M/s Rays Engineering Works is reproduced below: "We, the undersigned have imported "Bucket Tooth" (parts and accessories of earthmoving machine) made of iron scrap by casting process vide above mentioned Bill of Entry and have declared the value of goods @Rs. 48.65/kg. We have been shown contemporaneous import data in respect of identical/similar goods wherein the simil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t formed the basis for re-determination of the value. The decisions relied upon by the appellant to support the contention sought to be raised and, therefore, of no benefit to them. Thus, I am of the considered view that the in view of the facts of the case, the challenge to the enhanced value does not sustain. My above view finds consonance with the decision of Hon'ble CESTAT, Principal Bench New Delhi in Commissioner of Customs, ICD Patparganj, Delhi vs. M/s Hanuman Prasad & Sons (Customs Appeal No. 51601 of 2019 and Final Order No. 51584-51619/2020 dated 20.10.2020). Thus, the enhanced value is liable to be accepted for the said three B/E. Accordingly, the demand of differential duty is sustained. 5.4 Deliberate undervaluation and mis-declaration of "UQC" being established, the impugned goods were liable for confiscation u/s 111(m). I find amount of redemption fine and penalty u/s 112(a)(ii) to be commensurate with the facts of the case and find no reasons to interfere with the same." (emphasis supplied) 5. Shri T. Chakrapani, learned representative appearing for the appellants submitted that the department did not adduce any evidence to substantiate that the valu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for export to India for delivery at the time and place of importation, or as the case may be, for export from India for delivery at the time and place of exportation, where the buyer and seller of the goods are not related and price is the sole consideration for the sale subject to such other conditions as may be specified in the rules made in this behalf: Provided xxxxxx xxxxxx" 10. It would be seen that section 14 of the Customs Act provides that the transaction value of goods shall be the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India where the buyer and the seller of the goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the sale, subject to such other conditions as may be specified in the rules made in this behalf. The 2007 Valuation Rules have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by section 14 of the Customs Act. Rule 12 deals with rejection of the declared value and is reproduced below: "Rule 12. Rejection of declared value. -- (1) When the proper officer has reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to any imported goods, he may ask the importer of such goods to furnish further ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....documents or other evidence and if, after receiving such further information, or in the absence of a response of such importer, the proper officer still has reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the value so declared, it shall be deemed that the transaction value of such imported goods cannot be determined under the provisions of rule 3(1). Explanation (iii) to rule 12 provides that 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 any of the six reasons contained therein, one of which is that there is a 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. 12. The proper officer doubted the value of the goods declared by the appellants since the value of the imported goods in the contemporaneous data was Rs. 75 per kg. On being confronted with this contemporaneous data, the appellant submitted letters that they agree for enhancement of the value of goods to Rs. 75 per kg. and that they did not desire that any show cause notice should be issued....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the re-assessment, a speaking order is not required to be passed. 15. In view of the specific requests made in the letters submitted by the appellants that they have agreed for the declared value of the goods to be enhanced to Rs. 75/- per kg, the assessing officer assessed the value of the goods at Rs. 75/- per kg. 16. It is seen from a perusal of section 17(4) of the Customs Act that the proper officer can re-assess the duty leviable, if it is found on verification, examination or testing of the goods or otherwise that the self-assessment was not done correctly. Sub-section (5) of section 17 provides that where any re-assessment done under sub-section (4) is contrary to the self-assessment done by the importer, the proper officer shall pass a speaking order on the re-assessment, except in a case where the importer confirms his acceptance of the said re-assessment in writing. 17. In the present case, as noticed above, the proper officer doubted the truth or accuracy of the value declared by the importers for the reason that contemporaneous data had a significantly higher value. It was open to the importers to require the proper officer to intimate the grounds in w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was held follows: "30. The very fact that the importers had agreed for enhancement of the declared value in the letters submitted by them to the assessing authority, itself implies that the importers had not accepted the value declared by them in the Bills of Entry. The value declared in the Bills of Entry, therefore, automatically stood rejected. Further, once the importers had accepted the enhanced value, it was really not necessary for the assessing authority to undertake the exercise of determining the value of the declared goods under the provisions of rules 4 to 9 of the Valuation Rules. This is for the reason that it is only when the value of the imported goods cannot be determined under rule 3(1) for the reason that the declared value has been rejected under sub rule 2, that the value of the imported goods is required to be determined by proceeding sequentially through rule 4 to 9. As noticed above, the importers had accepted the enhanced value and 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 Valuation Rules sequentially." 20. The aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in Hanuman Prasa....