TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 599
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and not on par with the contemporaneous prices of the same quality of goods imported from the same country during relevant period and the same was informed to the importer. The value declared by the importer were less when compared with the contemporary imports through others ports were the unit rate of USD 333.729 PMT (FOB) was recorded as against the declared value by the appellant has been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority and enhanced value of USD 333.729 PMT (FOB) in place of 157.48037 PMT(FOB). 3. Thereafter, appellant had filed appeal before Learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals), has rejected the appeal and upheld the order passed by Adjudicating Authority after that appellant filed appeal before CESTAT. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that Learned Commissioner (Appeals), has failed to appreciate under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, which provides that if assessment is done contrary to the claim of the importer, the Customs Officer shall pass a speaking order within 15 days from the date of assessment of bill of entry. In the instant case there was no speaking order on the reassessment from the date of reassessment of the bill ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4165966 and 4165992 both dated 25.07.2011 of Myanmar origin with a declared unit rate of USD 157.48037 PMT (FOB). Learned Assistant Commissioner / Adjudicating Authority notices that the declared unit rate of the goods appeared to be very low and not on par with the contemporaneous prices of the same quality of goods imported from the same country during relevant period and observed that the value adopted on the basis of contemporaneous prices of the similar goods imported during the relevant period as the time of assessment is to be taken for determining the value of the subject goods and assured unit rate of USD 333.729 per MT(FOB) in place of declared price. 11. In this regard Section 14 of the Customs Act provides as under: "14. Valuation of goods. - (1) For the purpose of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, or any other law for the time being in force, the value of the imported goods and export goods shall be the transaction value of such goods, that is to say, the price actually paid or payable for 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (1) shall be accepted: Provided that- (a) there are no restriction 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 these rules; and (d) the buyer and seller are not related, or where the buyer and seller are related, that transaction value is acceptable for customs purposes under the provisions of sub-rule (3) below. (3) (a) Where the buyer and seller are related, the transaction value shall be accepted provided that the ex-administration of the circumstances of the sale of the impo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proper officer, shall intimate the importer in writing the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to goods imported by such importer and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, before taking a final decision under sub-rule (1). 14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Century Metal Recycling (P) Ltd., Vs UOI [2019 (6) SCC 655], inter alia, held that 'rejection of the transaction value declared by importer without giving cogent and good reasons in terms of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, not permissible. Enquiry prior to such rejection and giving of valid reasons for doing so by proper officer, is necessary. Requirement of giving reasons, both at the preliminary as well as the second stage of enquiry i.e., when doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared, mandatory in nature'. 15. Transaction value/invoice price corroborated by sale/purchase contract and BRC cannot be rejected without substantive evidence that the export price was not true or genuine. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE & ST, Noida Vs Sanjivani Non Fer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cated in the final invoice price, which has been received by them through the Bank. In other words, the price actually paid for the goods exported was the price realized by them as per the final invoice and as per the Bank certificate and that is the transaction value on which duty liability has to be discharged." 17. In the case of Mahajan Fabrics Pvt Ltd., Vs CCE, New Delhi [2017 (357) ELT 1240 (Tri-Del)], it has been held as under: "10. ...... it is seen that the customer in the foreign country has accepted the declared value of the export goods and have also paid the declared amount to the appellant. There is nothing on record to indicate any other extraneous consideration. It is settled law that transaction value between the importer and exporter is required to be accepted normally. The conditions under which such transaction value can be rejected is also mentioned in the Customs Valuation Rules 2007. These rules also indicate the procedure for redetermination of the value in the case transaction value is to be rejected. In the present case we are of the view that there are no valid reasons for rejection of the transaction value..." 18. We find that the Assessin....