TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1898
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rivate purposes and is not meant for assessment of duty. In this case, the appellant declared a value and enclosed an invoice showing the same value. Later, during investigations by the DRI, the appellant had, on the request of DRI, opened its email which showed that there was a different invoice for the same consignment showing a higher value. ***** 4. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the appellant's own case by Final Order No. C/A/57046-57047/2017-CU[DB] dated 19.10.2017 in which this contention of the appellant that assessment must be done only on the basis of the invoice produced along with the Bill of Entry and any other invoice for the same consignment found in the emails, etc. cannot be taken to calculate the duty. ***** 5. We respectfully differ from this reasoning of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal that assessment has to be done only on the basis of whatever invoice is submitted along with the Bill of Entry and the importer could have a different invoice for the same consignment showing a higher value for private purposes and that such an invoice is irrelevant to determining the duty. ***** ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iner No. OOLU2897353 and the appellant filed a Bill of Entry No. 549 dated 05.03.2015. The details are as follows: Bill of Entry No. and date Declared description of the goods Quantity (Kg.) Customs Tariff Item No. Declared assessable value (Rs.) 549 dated 05.03.2015 Glass Chatons 10003.850 7018 10 20 18595750 Plastic Resin 9180.410 3626 40 49 1484853 Resin Bangles 278.440 3926 40 19 56515 Total 19462.700 20137118 4. The Bill of Entry was supported by Invoice dated 26.01.2015 issued by Daen China, a Packing List, Bill of Lading dated 31.01.2015 and IGM No. 2104015 dated 13.02.2015. 5. While the officers of Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence [DRI] were investigating an earlier import made by the appellant under Bill of Entry No. 515 dated 12.02.2015, they asked Gaurav Kushwaha to open his e-mail account. Gaurav Kushwaha then opened his e-mail account and voluntarily downloaded one Commercial Invoice No. GIBHL0042 dated 28.01.2015 and a Packing List pertaining to Container No. OOLU2897353. This Invoice was in respect of the goods that were imported by the appellant for which a Bill of Entry No. 54....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....70 of 2017 dated 09.10.2017], on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The relevant portion of this decision dated 09.10.2017 of the Tribunal is reproduced below: "5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. In the present case we note that the bill of entry filed by the importer contained description of the goods and quantities which were found to be tallying on physical examination. The case of the Revenue is that upon knowing the DRI action to hold and examined the consignment, the appellant declared the cargo and value correctly. In other words, the document retrieved from the E-mail account of the appellant with gross mis-declaration of description and value of goods would have been filed but for the intervention of the officers of DRI. Accordingly, a view was taken by the Revenue that the invoice which was filed alongwith the bill of entry was a fabricated one and the invoice which was found in the E-mail account should be considered as invoice for transaction which will establish the attempted mis-declaration of the appellant. We find in this aspect the present case is a peculiar one. The bill of entry which is a sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oduced below: "17. Assessment of duty.- (1) An importer entering any imported goods under section 46, or an exporter entering any export goods under section 50, shall, save as otherwise provided in section 85, self-assess the duty, if any, leviable on such goods. (2) The proper officer may verify the entries made under section 46 or section 50 and the self-assessment of goods referred to in sub-section (1) and for this purpose, examine or test any imported goods or export goods or such part thereof as may be necessary. Provided that the selection of cases for verification shall primarily be on the basis of risk evaluation through appropriate selection criteria. (3) For the purposes of verification under sub-section (2), the proper officer may require the importer, exporter or any other person to produce any document or information, whereby the duty leviable on the imported goods or export goods, as the case may be, can be ascertained and thereupon, the importer, exporter or such other person shall produce such document or furnish such information. (4) Where it is found on verification, examination or testing of the goods or othe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scribed form *****" 17. In exercise of the powers conferred under section 156 and 14 of the Customs Act, the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 have been framed. 18. Sub-rules (1), (2) (without the proviso) and sub-rule (4) of rule 3 are reproduced below: "3. Determination of the method of valuation.- (1) Subject to rule 12, the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value adjusted in accordance with provisions of rule 10; (2) Value of imported goods under sub-rule (1) shall be accepted: Provided that ***** (4) If the value cannot be determined under the provisions of sub-rule (1), the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially through rule 4 to 9." 19. Rule 4 deals with transaction value of identical goods, while rule 5 deals with transaction value of similar goods. Rule 6 deals with determination of value where value cannot be determined under the provisions of rules 3, 4 and 5. It provides that the value shall be determined under rule 7 or, when the value cannot be determined under rule 7, under rule 8. Rule 7 deals with deductive value, while rule 8 deals with compute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Tribunal concerns a situation when the importer produces one invoice with the Bill of Entry that is filed with the customs authorities but another invoice for the same consignment is found in the private records or e-mails of the importer showing a different value. It is in such circumstances that the Division Bench required the Larger Bench to answer whether customs duty under section 14 of the Customs Act should be determined based only on the invoice produced with the Bill of Entry or should it be determined on the basis of the transaction value as reflected in the invoice found in the e-mail. 23. The reason why the Division Bench considered it necessary to refer the matter to a Larger Bench of the Tribunal was because of the decision dated 19.10.2017 of the Tribunal in the matter of the appellant wherein it was held that when an invoice is retrieved from e-mail account of the appellant but is not filed with the department and is in possession of the importer in a private capacity, it cannot substantiate the case of mis-declaration. In coming to such a conclusion, the Division Bench did not refer to section 14 of the Customs Act or to the 2007 Valuation Rules. A general an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the duty leviable on the imported goods. It cannot, therefore, be urged that the invoice retrieved from the e-mail account of the appellant cannot be considered for the purposes of ascertainment of duty liability. 28. Even otherwise, rule 12 of the 2007 Valuation Rules deals with rejection of declared value. It provides that where the proper officer has reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to any imported good, he may ask the importer of such goods to furnish further information, including documents or other evidence and if, after receiving such information, 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 sub-rule (1) of rule 3. 29. The aforesaid provisions of the Customs Act and the 2007 Valuation Rules do not prohibit the proper officer from taking into consideration the invoice retrieved from the e-mail account of the appellant, which is in relation to the same consignment, for the purposes of verification of the entries made under section 46 of the Customs Act. In fact, a....