TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 791
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore. 2. Briefly the facts are the appellant had imported 'Oath Token' by declaring the unit price as USD 6.5 and cleared under RMS facility. Later on, investigations revealed that there was undervaluation in as much as identical goods from the same supplier were assessed at unit price of USD 50 each which was accepted by the appellant and cleared on payment of appropriate duty, hence the Commissioner in the impugned order redetermined the value under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, thus confirming the demand of Rs. 39,12,062/- and appropriation of Rs.40,81,732/- inclusive of interest. Also upheld imposition equivalent penalty by the original authority. 3. The Learned Coun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claimed that interest is not chargeable and penalty under Section 114A cannot be sustained as there is no wilful suppression. It is also stated that the notice is premature since the assessments are yet to be finalized placing reliance on ITC Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2004 (170) ELT 33 (LB) affirmed by the Supreme Court 2006 (203) ELT 532. 4. The Authorized Representative on behalf of the revenue reiterating the findings of the Commissioner contends that the enhancement is based on the value accepted by the appellant for their previous inputs, hence cannot be ignored. Relied upon the decision in the case of Bharathi Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore Final Order No. 20667/2024 dated 20.08.2024, Cimmco Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is not satisfied and has reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the value so declared, it is deemed that the transactional value of such imported goods cannot be determined under the provision of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the 2007 Rules. Clause (iii) of Explanation to Rule 12 states that the proper officer can on 'certain reasons' raise doubts about the truth or accuracy of declared value. 'Certain reasons' would include conditions specified in clauses (a) to (f) i.e. higher value of identical similar goods of comparable quantities in a comparable transaction, abnormal discount or abnormal deduction from ordinary competitive prices, sales involving the special prices, misdeclaration on parameters such as description, quality, quant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld have reasonable doubt as to the transactional value on account of truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to the imported goods. (b) Proper officer must ask the importer of such goods further information which may include documents or evidence; (c) On receiving such information or in the absence of response from the importer, the proper officer has to apply his mind and decide whether or not reasonable doubt as to the truth or accuracy of the value so declared persists. (d) When the proper officer does not have reasonable doubt, the goods are cleared on the declared value. (e) When the doubt persists, sub-rule (1) to Rule 3 is not applicable and transaction value is determined in terms of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7. The choice of words deployed in Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules are significant and of much consequence. The Legislature, we must agree, has not used the expression "reason to believe" or "satisfaction" or such other positive terms as a pre-condition on the part of the proper officer. The expression "reason to believe" which would have required the proper officer to refer to facts and figures to show existence of positive belief on the undervaluation or lower declaration of the transaction value. The expression "reason to doubt" as a sequitur would require a different threshold and examination. It cannot be equated with the requirements of positive reasons to believe, for the word 'doubt' refers to un-certainty and irresolution reflecting susp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enquiries and ascertained details with reference to the goods imported which are identical or similar and 'certain reasons' exists and justifies detailed investigation. These reasons are to be recorded and if requested disclosed/communicated to the importer. Valuation alerts could be relied upon for default valuation computation under the Rules. [See Varsha Plastic Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2009) 3 SCC 365 = 2009 (235) E.L.T. 193 (S.C.)]". 7. In view of the above, since the appellant had cleared identical products earlier on payment of USD 50, the Commissioner's order to redetermine the value based on the earlier acceptance of the value at USD 50 cannot be found fault with. In fact, the appellant in the present 5 Bills of Entry vide ....