TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 440
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessing officer on the Customs EDI System asking the appellant to justify the value. The importer/CHA was also shown the contemporaneous data of imports. The appellant replied in a letter and electronically as follows :- "Written letter:- "We have imported goods and have filed said Bills of Entry for clearance of goods under above said Bill of Entry declaring value as above. However, our declared value is liable to be rejection under Customs Valuation Rules 2007 based on NIDB contemporaneous import data and the assessable value needs to enhanced to USD 1.94/kgs. against our declared value. Since, we have voluntarily accepted the rejection of declared value of the goods increased value. We do not want any speaking order on the re-assessment of the same. We also do not want show cause notice or personal hearing in the matter. Thus, we voluntarily forfeit our right so as to having show cause notice and opportunity of Personal Hearing as provided under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962". Electronically on the Customs EDI system: "We were shown the contemporaneous import of the said items from the NIDB data for the corre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nominal if the difference in weighment scale is considered. Hence, the allegation that the appellant had mis-declared the weight and therefore the entire consignment are liable for confiscation under Section 111 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for concealing the dutiable goods is highly misplaced. (v) The allegation of mis-declaration of value on the basis of alleged import of similar goods vide Bill of Entry No. 9316284 dt. 19.12.2018, 9405604 dt. 26.12.2018, 9998529 dt. 09.02.2019 & 2610743 dt. 28.03.2019 wherein the goods have shown to have been assessed @ USD 1.94/KG is also not correct as while applying Rule 5 of CVR, 2007 the declared value is to be taken in consideration and not the assessed value in case of applying contemporaneous import data. (vi) It is submitted that the justification for applying the alleged contemporaneous bills of entry holding that the appellant has accepted the enhancement of value relying upon certain judgments to say that what is admitted need not be proved. In this regard it is submitted that the acceptance of enhancement of value and admission of under valuation are two different things. In the presently case the appellant has not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cepts a revised value, they cannot later contest it on the same grounds. By accepting the revised value and waiving further procedural steps, the importer effectively acknowledged the correctness of the reassessment. (v) In addition to the valuation discrepancy, the Department also discovered a misdeclaration of the weight of the imported goods. The actual weight upon examination exceeded the declared weight by 323.38 kgs. (vi) The appellant's voluntary admission of undervaluation, coupled with legal precedents supporting the Department's decision, strengthens the case against the appellant. The Department's thorough assessment and communication, coupled with the importer's voluntary revision of the declared value, demonstrates a commitment to fair and transparent import processes. Findings : 7. We have considered the submissions advanced by both sides and perused the records. 8. As per Rule 3 of the Valuation Rules, the value of the goods shall be the transaction value subject to Rule 12. Rule 12 provides for rejection of transaction value by the proper officer. In other words, if the transaction value is not rejected by the proper officer under Rule 12,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns which may include - (a) the significantly higher value at which identical or similar goods imported at or about the same time in comparable quantities in a comparable commercial transaction were assessed; (b) the sale involves an abnormal discount or abnormal reduction from the ordinary competitive price; (c) the sale involves special discounts limited to exclusive agents; (d) the misdeclaration of goods in parameters such as description, quality, quantity, country of origin, year of manufacture or production; (e) the non declaration of parameters such as brand, grade, specifications that have relevance to value; (f) the fraudulent or manipulated documents". 10. In this case, since the declared values were far lower than the contemporaneous values, the proper officer had reason to doubt the transaction value. When asked, the appellant agreed that the declared values may be rejected and the goods may be assessed at contemporaneous values of imports. This reply was made online to an online query. The submission of the learned counsel that it was a coerced acceptance is meaningless. The appellant responded online sitting in h....