TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 248
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....:- a. The appellant imported the subject goods against the above mentioned bill of entry under self-assessment/RMS scheme as per Section 17 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and assessed the goods as per the value declared in the invoice. b. The subject goods were examined 100% by the shed officials wherein it was found that the goods imported under the description of "Small Decorative LED Light" were found as 54 L RGB LED Par Light of Brand Baisun. It was found that the subject goods were in accordance with the declared quantity and description. On visual examination of the goods, it was found that the goods were highly undervalued. c. Accordingly, as the goods were mis-declared and the value appeared to be low, the lower authority rejected the declared value of the goods under Rule- 12 of CVR-2007 and proceeded with the re-assessment under Rule-4 to Rule-9 of CVR-2007. d. As there were no identical or similar goods available as evidence in DOV or NIDB, the lower authority concluded that the value of the said goods cannot be re-determined under Rule-4 & 5 of CVR-2007 and thus proceeded to determine the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing officer and claims that the value of the imported goods was enhanced in accordance with law and there has been no breach of the provisions. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order had thus framed the following questions for determination by him:- a. Whether the enhancement of value of the goods on the basis of online market enquiry under Rule-7 of CVR-2007 by the lower authority is maintainable or otherwise. b. Whether the said goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111 (m) regarding the under-valuation & mis-declaration of the goods is maintainable or otherwise. c. Whether the appellant is liable for penalty and redemption fine under Section 112 (a) (ii) and Section 125 of the Act respectively. d. Whether the redemption fine as imposed by the lower authority on the appellant is in accordance with the writings of the Section 125 of the Act. 6. Assessing the comparison of goods declared by the importer and as ascertained by the examining officer, to establish a case of misdeclaration, we note that the said order records the goods were declared in accordance with the description which is generic and in accordance wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 15. As an alternative submission, it was also pleaded that even where identical or similar goods are not available, data is available, of the value of the goods in the National Import Database ('NIDB') or the Department of Valuation database ('DOV') 16. In a nutshell, the submission really is that the valuation was possible on the basis of import from the other two countries if the brand was to be given some significance, and in the alternative, if the plea was accepted that the brand was not of any significance, then the other imports from the U.K. of the same kind of lights could be taken into consideration. It was clarified that the endeavour was not to compare oranges and apples, but to compare apples of a particular variety with the apples of the same variety, i.e., if it was one lamp light, it was to be compared with one lamp light. In this behalf data was available. 17. We may notice there were certain other pleas advanced, including the plea of limitation, but that is not of much significance for redetermination, on account of the conclusion we are reaching hereinafter. 18. We must first take note of the fact that electrical decor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent reasons and adds that not only mere enhancement of declared values, the manner of arriving at the re-assessable values was not in accordance with law. It is also noted therein that though the lower authority has based its findings on an online market survey, however has failed to follow the prescriptions of the valuation Rules. 11. In the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, DELHI vs. Maruti Fabric Impex reported in 2016 (343) ELT 963 (Tri.-Delhi.), with reference to assessing of goods at enhanced value, issuance of a speaking order under Sec. 17 of the Customs Act and the clearance of goods by the importer, this Tribunal has held as under: "5. As regards the first objection, we find that the provision of Section 17 does not preclude an assessee from filing an appeal against the enhancement. The issue is no more res integra and stands settled by various decisions. In the case of Digitech Photocopier v. CC, Mumbai reported as 2009 (233) E.L.T. 425 (Tri-Del.), it was held that forced acceptance of enhanced value when goods under detention does not debar importer to challenge such value. Reference can also made to the majority decision of the Tribunal in the case of Marque....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....find that the deductive value under Rule 7 of CVR, 2007 is to be arrived at by considering the unit price of the goods sold, in this case, to buyers at first commercial level. The unit average price of as taken by the lower Revenue authorities, therefore, is not correct. The deductive value is to be arrived at by considering the unit price at which the goods were sold to the first commercial level buyers, as these sales satisfy the provision of Rule 7 of CVR, 2007, which state that value of imported goods shall be based on the unit price at which such goods or identical/similar goods are sold in the greatest aggregates quantity to unrelated persons in India. Once this unit price at which the imported goods were sold has been decided, the deductive value is to be arrived at after giving the deductions mentioned in the Rule 7." 14. The Tribunal in the case of Kuber India V. Commr. of Customs, Jaipur-I (2016 (340) ELT 404 T) in Para 6 thereof has noted as:- "6. We find that the above reasoning and finding of the original authority is completely devoid of legal merit. First of all, the original authority did not record any reason for rejecting the invoice value. Apparently,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... held as: "6. Heard both sides. The declared value of the imported goods was proposed to be rejected in terms of Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and was proposed for reassessment by reverse deduction from the local market price ascertained during the market enquiry. However, in the impugned order the Commissioner has adopted totally different line of valuation. He has looked into the valuation of contemporaneous import of identical/similar goods as found in NIDB data and proceeded to step up the value. We find that Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 as well as Customs Valuation Rules do not sanction such a method for redetermination of assessable value. The transaction value is required to be accepted unless there are valid reasons for rejection of such value as provided in the Customs Valuation Rules. In the present case, no valid reasons have been recorded for ignoring the transaction value. Neither the market enquiry nor NIDB data will be a valid ground to disregard the transaction value. In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractors (supra) is specifically applicable to the present case. In the abov....