TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1238
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3797/11.01.2022 that was thereafter enlarged to cover eight other imports effected by the same entity between 24th July 2019 to 31st January 2021. The essence of the allegations stemming from investigation was that goods, originating in 'Iran', had been wrongly declared as from 'Zambia' purportedly to bypass purported sanctions purportedly imposed by executive order [executive order no. 13871 dated 8th May 2019] of the government of United States of America, owing to which the freight was not accurately included in the declared value and, having to be re-determined, validated invoking of rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 for re-determination of assessable value and, ironically, adding on default enhancement to 'surrogate value' ascertained by recourse to rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. We adopt the qualifying 'purported' and deploy 'ironically' with deliberate intent; while the latter has a bearing on the outcome of the appeal, the former draws attention to the lack of narrated authority for insinuating an infraction that is unknown to the laws of the Republic of India. In conseque....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, and inhering from the technical nature and consequence of declaration of country of origin, it is the recourse to rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 on the back of this discrepancy that hails our attention for a closer examination in the context of empowerment therein. 3. According to Learned Counsel for the appellant, proceedings were launched on two fronts, pertaining to sixty containers imported through Inland Container Depot (ICD), Tumb and twenty containers at Nhava Sheva, and with the former having been set aside by the Tribunal, commonality of investigation precludes validation of the order impugned here. It was contended by him that the series of evidences upon which the conclusions in the impugned order rested had already been addressed in order [final order no. 10449-10451/2024 dated 21st February 2024] of the Tribunal, in Amglo Resources Private Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad, on Appeal [customs appeal no. 10770 to 10772 of 2023] of theirs against similar order [order-in-original no. 70/ADC/MA/O8rA/2023-24 dated 12th June 2023] fastening duty liability and penalties. It was also contended that the alleged ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of goods contrary to notification under section 11 of Customs Act, 1962. It is not a case of breach of any prohibition or restriction on import from any of the possible countries under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) notified under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 either. Even the reference in the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 to correctness of details in the bills of entry and value is, like all derived statutory mandate, contextual to the objective of the borrowing statute. Value is relevant to 'quantitative barriers' and 'trade promotion schemes' in the policy and are not intended to be drawn upon by officers created and empowered under the borrowed statute; a superfluous crutch, if that. So, too, with 'origin' of goods. Procedural infirmities, if these be so, do not make for 'contrary to prohibition' intended by section 111 (d) of Customs Act, 1962 because procedure commences with declaration and confiscation is mandated only upon goods being prohibited for entry into India. An explicit prohibition, under laws empowering prohibition, of a product or from a source or by reference to value as threshold or ceiling, is sine qua non for co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh General Agreement on Trade & Tariffs (GATT) to the World Trade Organization (WTO) deliberations and the crafting of the mechanism as it exists today. In the course of this development, the 'gold standard' - 'contracted price' conforming to the parameters that, together, endorse it as 'transaction value' for assessment in the Rules of 1988 - for the concept has, since, been normalized as the concept. The abnormal is remedied by recourse to the extant Rules and the design of section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 is structured as three mutually exclusive, and entirely circumstantial, alternatives which, for convenience in distinguishment, may be designated as 'substitute', 'surrogate' and 'supplemental' values. The first is derived, and by application of rule 3(1) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, from evidenced existence of 'contracted price' other than that declared and does not concern this dispute. 10. The second has its genesis from one of two deviations, viz., relationship [rule 3(2) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007] between buyer and seller influenced 'contracted price' and from not fitting th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ports on the east African seaboard, is much further off from Dubai than Iran. Factually, there is no valid cause for re-determination of the costs under rule 10 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. 12. Rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 is possessed of sufficient latitude, together with primacy accorded by rule 3(1) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 to be triggered by alleged discrepancy in origin. Even if such discrepancy stands established, either by non-controverting on the part of importer of by non-acceptability of controverting, it is clear from 'Explanation.- (1) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that:- (i) This rule by itself does not provide a method for determination of value, it provides a mechanism and procedure for rejection of declared value in cases where there is reasonable doubt that the declared value does not represent the transaction value; where the declared value is rejected, the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially in accordance with rules 4 to 9. (ii) The declared valu....