TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1220
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; Rs.18,29,595/- Rs.29,41,792/- Rs.5,00,000/- Duty paid against provisionally assessed B/Es. Rs.16,75,085/- Interest under Section/s 28AA Unquantified. (2) Appeal No. C/41867 / 2016 -M/s. Shyam Petrochem Industries: Period of dispute October 2011 Demand of duty on provisionally assessed B/E No. 4904777, dated 13.10.2011. Rs.3,68,456/- Redemption fine Rs.7,80,000 Penalty Under Section 112 Under Section 114AA Rs.5,20,937/- Rs.5,00,000/- Duty paid already paid and appropriated 4,33,247/- Interest under Section/s 28AA Unquantified. (3) Appeal No. C/41868 / 2016 -M/s. Gokulka Trade Links Pvt Ltd: Period of dispute 12/2011 to 5/2013 Demand of duty on Bills of Entry No. 5520022, dated 21.12.2011 provisionally assessed, and 2253638, dated 28.05.2013 finally assessed. Rs.16,21,748/- Penalties: under Section 112 under Section 114A under Section 114AA Rs.8,81,047/- Rs.2,85,113/- Rs. 5,00,000/- Redemption fine Rs.13,00,000/-. Interest under Section 28AA Unquantified. Duty already paid and appropriated. Rs.8,85,549/-. (4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accordingly, they filed detailed replies to the SCN and asserting inter-alia that the demand based on third party depositions and price databases were legally not valid; that the burden of proof undervaluation rests on Revenue which cannot be shifted to the importer; that the finally assessed Bills of Entry could not be reopened without conducting review under Section 129D and filing Appeal before the Appellate Authority; that the redetermination of value was not in accordance with the valuation Rules; that at worst, deductive method of valuation under Rule 7 should have been adopted; that extended period of limitation could not have been invoked for provisionally assessed Bills of Entry. The Appellants also appeared to have contested the proposed penalties, confiscation and redemption fines, apart from challenging the levy of penalty under Section 114AA since, according to them, the same was inapplicable inasmuch as the Appellants had not knowingly made any false or incorrect declaration or used such documents, while transacting the Customs business. 3. The Adjudicating Authority/Commissioner after affording an opportunity of personal hearing and after considering the replies,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erence that these consignments too had been undervalued. 8. With regard to invocation of larger period of limitation, it was argued that the DRI had dragged on the investigation for over two years and taken another year and a quarter to issue the notice, which was prejudicial to the Appellants inasmuch as the same has resulted in additional interest liability on the duty demanded. 9. Per contra, ld. Dy. Commissioner supported the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. He also invited our attention to the specific paras wherein the Adjudicating Authority has discussed at length the reasons for rejecting the transaction value and the reliance placed on the report of CRCL. He would thus pray for upholding the OIO. 10. We have carefully considered the contentions of both the parties and perused the documents placed on record, we have also gone through the judicial decisions relied upon during the course of arguments before us. After considering the rival contentions, the following issues arise for our consideration: 1. Whether the Adjudicating Authority was justified in rejecting the transaction value and re-determining the customs duty? 2. Whether Larger pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anced value is not based on contemporaneous imports, but on Petrosil database alone, which admittedly a compilation of data of statistics like price, report, etc. of global petroleum industries which is nothing to do with transaction value. There is also nothing placed on record to suggest that these data represented the actual contemporaneous transaction value as prescribed under Valuation Rules, 2007, but in any case, the Adjudicating Authority admits at para 41 of the impugned order that the same was compared with the shipping prices of 'Abhishek India Ltd.', but how the same applies to these Appellants has remained undiscussed. That reliance on someone's statement was a most appropriate case for the Appellants to seek cross-examination but the same appears to have been turned-down which, according to us, is highly unjustified. The price information from data bases which have been relied upon does not, according to us, represent contemporaneous import price as per Rules 4 or 5 of the Valuation Rules, 2007. 15. Quiet apparently, the valuation in the OIO has not been made on the basis of any approved methods, at para 44 the Adjudicating Authority records Appellant's objections ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re or production, non-declaration of parameters such as brand and grade etc. and fraudulent or manipulated documents. Grounds mentioned in (a) to (f) however are not exhaustive of 'certain reasons' to raise doubt about the truth or accuracy of the declared value. Clause (ii) to Explanation states that the declared value shall be accepted where the proper officer is satisfied about the truth and accuracy of the declared value after enquiry in consultation with the importers. Clause (i) to the Explanation states that Rule 12 does not provide a method of determination of value but provides the procedure or mechanism in cases where declared value can be rejected when there is a reasonable doubt that the declared transaction value does not represent the actual transaction value. In such cases the transaction value is to be sequentially determined in accordance with Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. ... ... ... 17. 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y to the scheme and purpose behind the provisions which ensure quick and expeditious clearance of imported goods. ... ... ... 24. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it has to be held that the adjudication order in original is flawed and contrary to law for it does not give cogent and good reason in terms of Section 14(1) and Rule 12 for rejection of the transaction value as declared in the bill of entry. The order in original is not in accordance with Section 14 and Rules 3 and 12 as the mandate of these provisions has been ignored. The Assistant Collector has rejected the transaction value as declared in the bill of entry which, as noticed above, is clearly and fundamentally erroneous besides being contradictory. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not think that the order in assessment dated 7th April, 2017 can be sustained and upheld. It is set aside and quashed." From a perusal of the impugned order, we find that the above ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court has remained unsatisfied and hence, the very rejection of transaction value itself is on a shaky ground. 17. Penalty under Section 112 can follow only when there is liability....