TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 829
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the assessment of bill of entry no.8027156 dated 19.01.2015. 2. Brief facts are that the appellant had filed the aforementioned bill of entry for the import of twelve numbers of used Picanol Gamma Rapier weaving looms with standard accessories and declared the value at Euro 12,800 per unit. The customs authorities were of the view that the value declared by the appellant was very low when compared to contemporary imports and hence enhanced the value of the said imported goods to Euro 19,000 as the assessable value per unit, based on the approved Chartered Engineer's Certificate. The bills of entry were assessed accordingly and aggrieved by the said assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the aforementioned Appellate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cumstances. d. In the case of Motor Industries Co. Ltd. V. Commissioner, 2009 (244) E.L.T. 4 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, citing the principle laid down in Eicher Tractors Ltd. 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.), held that it is settled law that rejection of transaction value without recording special or extraordinary reasons is not acceptable. The Certificate of the local Chartered Engineer cannot be considered as a special or extraordinary reasons to reject the transaction value. e. The Appellate Authority has held that the declared value has been rejected by the Customs Authorities under Rule 12 of CVR 2007 and the value was redetermined based on the Chartered Engineer's Certificate under Rule 4 (2) of CVR 2007. This Ru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reasonable, is available. h. The Appellate Authority has relied on the decision in the case of Omprakash Bhatia, where it was held that when margin of profit appears unreasonable, it is for the exporter to establish that it was the true value stated. It is submitted that there is no finding of the Appellate Authority with worksheet on the margin of profit alleged to be unreasonable in the appellant's case. Hence, the reliance on the said decision was incorrect. i. The appellant had produced valid documents namely letter of credit, invoice and load port CE certificate before the Appellate Authority and hence finding that the appellant has not produced any valid documents to show that the declared value is correct is contra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....situations in which the transaction value cannot be accepted, as mentioned in proviso to Rule 3(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 are present. There is no evidence that the appellant has surreptitiously remitted to the foreign supplier any amount more than the amount the appellant actually paid as the transaction value declared. There must be some reasonable basis for arriving at the belief that the transaction value is unacceptable, which belief should be supported by cogent evidence. Mere suspicion that the importers are out to take advantage over the authorities and thereby deprive the exchequer of legitimate revenue would be an approach which is antithetical to nurturing a conducive environment to conduct business. 8. We have p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al manual or additional information based on which value of the machines have been reassessed by the local chartered Engineer, we find no justifiable reason emanating that would warrant the load port CE certificate to be discarded. In In the light of the above, we are of the view that Customs authorities have merely transposed the local CE Certificate for that of the load CE Certificate which tantamount to mere substitution of the opinion of one expert for that of another, without any sufficient independent basis for its adoption. It is also pertinent that the customs authorities have not impugned the load port certificate as not genuine or as one obtained by fraud. We are therefore of the considered opinion that such rejection of the load ....