TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 44
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eight (CNF) value of US$ 2.80 per kg. As per the import invoice No. NC-667 dated 18.01.2013, the goods were imported from China and total declared value was US$ 61917.80. At the time of assessment of the said B/E, the Department had enhanced the unit value of the said imported goods from US$ 2.80 per kg. to US$ 4.60 per kg., on the basis of DRI Alert Circular dated 09.05.2011, which state that there was under valuation in import of fabrics from China, and to address such menace, the actual rates were ascertained by DRI for circulation to all customs authorities at various ports as guideline in future assessments. Accordingly, the appellant had paid differential duty of Rs.5,75,345/-. 2.3 On being aggrieved against such loading of value, the appellant had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), inter alia, on the grounds that they have not been issued any show-cause notice, which was mandatory in terms of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962; that they have not been provided with any relied upon documents or contemporary import evidencing the enhancement of the assessable value and; that they have not been given any notice for personal hearing before rejection of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'proper officer' regarding truth and accuracy of the declared value under Rule 12 of the Rules of 2007, the appellant was never called upon to justify the value or submit further documents and there is no evidence to support that the value which was declared by the appellant was not the "actual price paid or payable" for the imported goods. He also submitted that for enhancement of declared value, the data of contemporaneous imports were never shared with the appellant and also there is no finding that the enhanced value was the lowest value of the identical goods, which is sina quan non for application of Rule 4 ibid. He further submitted that in an identical case, enhancement of declared value on the basis of DRI alert has been rejected by the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Sedna Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Faridabad - 2017 (347) E.L.T. 317 (Tri-Chan.) and in the case of M/s Surbhit Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva vide Final Order No. A/86758/2023 dated 13.01.2023. On the above basis, he pleaded that their appeal may be allowed. 4. Learned Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue reiterated the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the goods when sold for export to India for delivery at the time and place of importation, or as the case may be, for export from India for delivery at the time and place of exportation, where the buyer and seller of the goods are not related and price is the sole consideration for the sale subject to such other conditions as may be specified in the rules made in this behalf: Provided that such transaction value in the case of imported goods shall include, in addition to the price as aforesaid, any amount paid or payable for costs and services, including commissions and brokerage, engineering, design work, royalties and licence fees, costs of transportation to the place of importation, insurance, loading, unloading and handling charges to the extent and in the manner specified in the rules made in this behalf: Provided further that the rules made in this behalf may provide for,- (i) the circumstances in which the buyer and the seller shall be deemed to be related; (ii) the manner of determination of value in respect of goods when there is no sale, or the buyer and the seller are related, or price is not the sole consideration for the sale or in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ill of entry or the shipping bill, as the case may be." "Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. Determination of the method of valuation. 3. (1) Subject to rule 12, the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value adjusted in accordance with provisions of rule 10; (2) Value of imported goods under sub-rule (1) shall be accepted: Provided that - (a) there are no restrictions as to the disposition or use of the goods by the buyer other than restrictions which- (i) are imposed or required by law or by the public authorities in India; or (ii) limit the geographical area in which the goods may be resold; or (iii) do not substantially affect the value of the goods; (b) the sale or price is not subject to some condition or consideration for which a value cannot be determined in respect of the goods being valued; (c) no part of the proceeds of any subsequent resale, disposal or use of the goods by the buyer will accrue directly or indirectly to the seller, unless an appropriate adjustment can be made in accordance with the provisions of rule 10 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th, adjusted to take account of the difference attributable to commercial level or to the quantity or both, shall be used, provided that such adjustments shall be made on the basis of demonstrated evidence which clearly establishes the reasonableness and accuracy of the adjustments, whether such adjustment leads to an increase or decrease in the value. (2) Where the costs and charges referred to in sub-rule (2) of rule 10 of these rules are included in the transaction value of identical goods, an adjustment shall be made, if there are significant differences in such costs and charges between the goods being valued and the identical goods in question arising from differences in distances and means of transport. (3) In applying this rule, if more than one transaction value of identical goods is found, the lowest such value shall be used to determine the value of imported goods. Rejection of declared value. 12. (1) When the proper officer has reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to any imported goods, he may ask the importer of such goods to furnish further information including documents or other evidence and if, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 8.2 In the present case, we find that the appellant had self-assessed the goods in terms of Section 17(1) ibid, by declaring the value of the imported goods, as per invoice value of the supplier from China at USD 2.80 per Kg. involving the total value of USD 61,917.80 for total quantity of 22,113.5 kgs. of imported knitted fabrics. The proper officer of Customs in verification of such self-assessment in terms of Section 17(2) and 17(3) ibid, had based his findings on DRI alert circular dated 09.05.2011 issued indicating the unit price of viscose knitted fabric at USD 4.82 per kg. in order to check undervaluation of imported goods, keeping in view of the international prices from China. Further, he had informed the Custom House Agent of the appellant's importer about the contemporary import prices by comparing the imports by M/s SSD Vijay Trading Pvt. Limited in B/E No. 7818759 dated 31.08.2012 and B/E No. 9079491 dated 21.01.2013 at USD 4.75 per kg. and enhanced the assessable value on the basis of such contemporary price data given in the NIDB. Accordingly, the proper officer of customs had re-assessed the val....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9. As per Rule 3 (1) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value f Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, Subject to Rule 12, the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value adjusted in accordance with provisions of Rule 10. It means the transaction value is to be accepted subject to the satisfaction of conditions of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. 10. ........................ In this case, since the assessing officer had raised the doubt about the truth or accuracy of the declared value in comparison with the values of identical goods imported during contemporary period, the importer had accepted the value loading in accordance with the value of identical goods of the contemporary period. 11. xxxx xxxx xxxx 12. As per Rule 3(4) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, If the value cannot be determined under the provisions of sub-rule (1), the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially through rule 4 to 9. As per Rule 4(1)(a) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, Subject to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s no reasonable cause for discarding the transaction value and set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The relevant paragraphs of the said order is quoted below: "Brief facts of the case are that the appellant herein had filed the Bill of Entry No.3800457 dated 15.06.2011 for clearance of 'Knitted Fabrics' at a declared value of USD 2 per kg. The goods were examined on first check basis and samples were drawn and send to the Textile Committee for testing. On examination of the test report dated 20.07.2011 issued by the Textile Committee, the department found that the appellant had suppressed the actual description of fabric and its composition. Further, the department also found that the fabric was made of 97.1% viscose yarn and 2.9% polyurethane yarn. Since, the said parameters have the bearing on the value of the goods and that the appellant had declared the lesser value in respect of the goods imported by it, the department had invoked Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 for rejection of such declared value and proceeded under Rule 9 ibid for re-determination of the value of goods at USD 5.21 per kg..... ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 2007. It is not the case of Revenue that the price paid or payable by the appellant to the overseas supplier is not the proper transaction value. Further, the department has not brought on record any evidence to show that over and above the price paid for the imported goods, the appellant had paid any other amount through the approved banking channel. Therefore, we do not find any justifiable reason to reject the declared value in respect of the goods imported by the appellant." 9. We find that in order to ensure that in re-assessment of imported goods the valuation is required to be done in terms of Section 14 ibid and the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. In the context of 'identical goods' when applying the Rule 4 of CVR of 2007, the following interpretative notes is required to be complied with. The extract of such Note to Rule 4 ibid is quoted below: "Notes to rule 4 1. In applying rule 4, the proper officer of customs shall, wherever possible, use a sale of identical goods at the same commercial level and in substantially the same quantities as the goods being valued. Where no such sale is found, a sale of identic....