TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1263
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....10.2017 were given out of charge clearance for home consumption on 10.10.2017. However due to the said alert placed and the goods had not left the customs bonded area that the goods got examined by SIIB on 11.10.2017. 1.2 The goods during examination of the goods it was found that 80% of the goods were of reputed brands viz. Delphi, Hitachi, Chevrolet, Skoda, Bosch etc. However no brand was declared by the appellant. From verification of ICES, it was observed that the appellant-importer had earlier also imported automobile parts without declaring any brand in the Bills of Entries filed by the appellant. Thus intentional suppression on part of the appellant was alleged. After recording various statements of the proprietor namely Shri Saurabh Jain mis-declaration and under valuation was alleged and Detention Memo dated 14.10.2017 was issued. 34866 pieces of imported auto parts of different brands/unbranded goods imported by the appellant and recovered/detained during searches conducted at the warehouses of the appellant and shop-cum officer of M/s. Vardhanan Automobiles got seized. Panchnama dated 17.10.2017 was also prepared. 1.3 Appellant vide letter dated 02.04.2018 had req....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ential duty payable by the appellant was worked out as Rs.5,01,217- in respect of goods imported vide Bill of Entry No. 4041988 dated 17.11.2017. 2. We have heard Shri B.L. Garg, Advocate and Shri Rajesh Singh, Authorized Representative for the department. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the violation of impugned goods as 'branded' is absolutely untenable. It is mentioned that all the impugned goods were either unbranded or misbranded as was stated by Shri Saurabh Jain, Proprietor of the appellant in his statement dated 14.03.2018. It was stated that many of the auto parts in question not actually branded and only bearing some false marking on the outer covering of the packages instead of bearing mark of the items. He also specifically stated that mis branding of auto mobile parts was done to make more marketable during sale in India. It is for this that no brand was declared in the Bills of Entry. The allegation of suppression are also not sustainable because of this reason. Investigating officers also got verified from few of the involved brands that the goods were not spurious/fake. Hence, the goods have wrongly been treated as branded goods. Reassessed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, Bangalore reported as 2006 (200) ELT 593 (Tri. Bang.) has been relied upon. With these submissions, the appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 5. Having heard both the sides and perusing the records, we observe and hold as follows: 5.1 The issue involved in these appeals relates to under valuation of the imported goods. Section 14 of the Customs Act deals with Valuation of Goods. It would be seen that Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides that the transaction value of goods shall be the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India where the buyer and the seller of the goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the sale, subject to such other conditions as may be specified in the rules made in this behalf. The valuation Rules have been framed in exercise of the power conferred by Section 14 of the Customs Act. In Eicher Tractors Ltd., Haryana Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported as (2001) 1 SCC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 6, held as under: "Under the Act customs duty is chargeable on goods. According to Section 14 (1) of the Act, the assessment of duty is to be made on the value of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It is on record that the proprietor of appellant namely Mr. Saurabh Jain had stated in this statement dated 14.10.2017 that the goods in question/auto parts were not actually branded and were only bearing some spurious markings/brand names on the outer covering of the packages. For goods found to be bearing other brands such as Rockberg, Hengxing, Sorl, Syndicate, Spazollo etc., no enquiries were conducted by the Investigating Officers with the respective brand-owners. It is also on record that during market enquiry, it was found that all the goods were only bearing fake brands names. Thus the findings in impugned order that goods in question were branded are held to be wrong without any basis/evidence for the same. 5.3 Further, adjudicating authority itself admitted that there was no under-valuation in case of un-branded goods. It is on record in paragraphs 33 and 36.3 of the impugned Order-in-Original that in respect of auto parts declared as unbranded vide the same Bills of Entry, there was no under-invoicing. Hence, there was no ground for loading of value of the goods that were found to be unbranded during examination. As per information on record in the impugned Order-in-O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rice and so Section 14(1)(b) of thewas properly invoked." Thus it is the established principle of law that the transaction value should be taken as correct value unless there is evidence to the contrary. Further, it is well settled law that unless there is additional consideration involved or any of the exception of Rule 4(2) are attracted transaction value cannot be rejected. Reference is made to the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Bombay) Vs. Bureau Veritas - 2005 (181) ELT 3 (SC) and Tolin Rubber (P) Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin - 2004 (163) ELT 289 (SC) as held in Auto Stores (India) Vs. Commissioner reported as 2014 (305) ELT A 75 (SC). 5.5 Now we look into Rule 12 of the 2007 Valuation Rules which deals with rejection of the declared value and Rule 3 thereof which determining the method of Valuations. It is observed that Rule 12 does not provide for a method of valuation as explicity stated therein. It only mentions the circumstances under which transaction value can be rejected. Once the transaction value is rejected, then the value has to be determined sequentially. Applying Rules 4 to 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s for enhancing the valuation of the goods. The principles of natural justice require that the Revenue authorities should have confronted the appellant with the material available for enhancing the value. There is, thus, denial of natural justice. In the instant case, the stage of issuing the show cause notice has not been crossed. Even if it were to be taken that the Petitioner validly waived the right to be served with the show cause notice, an adjudication order had to be passed within a reasonable time after the seizure. Here, not only has the initial period of six months after the date of seizure lapsed, but the next six months also lapsed without any order having being passed in respect of extension of the period of six months for the reason indicated in Section 110(2) of the Act. Merely because there was a waiver by the petitioner of the right to be served with the show cause notice, it does not mean that the respondents could indefinitely postpone the adjudication order without which the respondents could not have, in terms of Section 124(A) proceeded to confiscate the seized goods. We place reliance on the decision passed in the case of Shiv Shakti Trading Co. Vs. Commissi....