TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1364
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were non-Textured Polyester Filament Yarn Fabric (PVC coating thickness 0.26 - 0.37 mm) which were of higher value. 4. The facts which led to the issue of the impugned order are that, acting of specific intelligence the consignments of goods imported by the appellant under the aforesaid seven Bills of Entry were placed on alert. The importer declared the goods as "PVC Coated Fabrics" and classified them under Customs Tariff Heading [CTH] 5903 and prices ranging from 0.88 US$ to 1.27 US$ per square meter and declared the total assessable value as Rs. 87,72,135/- and the duty as Rs. 32,07,850/-. Samples were drawn in the presence of the importer and the customs broker under a panchnama and sent to CRCL for testing. In all 2730 kg. excess weight found in one container. CRCL test reports confirmed that the goods were non-Textured Polyester Filament Yarn Fabric with PVC coating and not PVC coated fabric as declared. For these reasons, the transaction value was rejected under Rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value Goods) Rules, 2007 [Valuation Rules] and re-determined under Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules. 5. The operative part of the impugned order is as follows :- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Trading Private Limited. Since the goods have been seized and confiscated and are ordered to be redeemed under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalty is imposable under section 112 (a) (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, penalty under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 is not imposed". Submissions on behalf of the appellant 6. Learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions :- (i) The Commissioner has rejected the declared value without reasonable doubt about the truth and accuracy as is required under Valuation Rules. He rejected the transaction value merely on the basis of NIDB Data without demonstrating commercial levels like quality, quantity, place of export, year of manufacture, supplier, etc. (ii) There is contradictory view between the Customs (Preventive) which investigated the matter and the Commissioner who passed the impugned order. In the investigation report sent to the Commissioner it has been indicated that no NIDB data could be found for similar or identical goods. (iii) Under Valuation Rule 4/5 the lowest value should be adopted whereas the Commissioner has taken the value after ignoring in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on Rule 12 and redetermined under Valuation Rule 4/5? 2) Whether the differential duty was correctly recoverable under section 28 (4) of the Act? 3) Whether the imported goods are liable to confiscation under section 111(l) & 111(m) of the Act 4) Whether penalty is imposable under section 114A of the Act? 9. The reasons for rejecting the declared transaction value under Valuation Rule 12 and re-determining it under Valuation Rule 9 is given in paragraphs 27.9.3, 27.9.4,27.9.8 and 27.9.9 of the impugned order which are reproduced below: "27.9.3 In the investigation report, it has been mentioned that the foreign supplier was a trader and therefore, the importer was asked to produce the manufacturer's invoice under rule 11 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. However, the importer failed to produce the requisite invoice and therefore, the declared transaction value was found unreliable. It was also found that the value was much lower than the value of the same goods fixed by the department earlier and therefore, the declared value was found rejectable under Rule 12 of CVR, 2007. It has also been recorded th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... having thickness of 0.27 mm, $ 0.49 for the goods having thickness of 0.29 mm, $ 0.62 for the goods having thickness of 0.37 mm, $ 0.63 for the goods having thickness of 0.43 mm, $ 0.77 for the goods having thickness of 0.45 mm & 0.46 mm, $ 0.82 for the goods having thickness of 0.48 mm, $ 0.90 for the goods having thickness of 0.53 mm is appropriately taken up for determination under Rule 4/5 of the CVR, 2007. 27.9.9 Accordingly, I find that the goods 'PVC coated fabric' imported vide the above Bills of Entry are declared at a value which is substantially lesser than the transaction value of contemporaneous identical/similar goods. Hence the declared value by the importer under the impugned Bills of Entry is liable to be rejected under Rule 12 of the CVR 2007 and a fresh value is to be redetermined on the basis of NIDB data as discussed above under Rule 4/5 of the CVR, 2007 since thickness of the goods in question are varying from 0l.25 mm to 0.53 mm and as revealed from the NIDB database, the values of the goods in question also vary on the basis of thickness of the impugned goods". 10. Learned authorised representative for the Revenue emphasised that the appellant h....