TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1865
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed equal penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the Appellant has been importing Aluminium Scrap falling under CTH 76020010 of different grades as per ISRI. An investigation was undertaken by the officers of Special Intelligence & Investigation Branch of Customs Commissionerate (i.e. SIIB) in respect of import of Aluminium Scrap by the Appellant during the last five years. The Appellant was directed to furnish the Bills of Entry, copy of invoices issued by the manufacturer and other documents which are required by the Customs department. After the investigation, the department entertained the view that the Appellant had mis-declared the value (undervalued) of the imported goods and had contravened the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 11 of CVR, 2007, as much as the Appellant had made a wrong declaration about the value of the goods in the Bill of Entry filed for importation of the goods with sole intention to evade the customs duty; the Appellant had done so willfully by suppressing the facts with intent to evade payment of customs duty; and therefore, extended period of limitation unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment, customs duty was charged from the Appellant; in respect of 72 Bills of Entry, the customs duty was levied on higher value of goods than what was declared by the Appellant; in some cases, higher customs duties were charged due to higher exchange value of US Dollar being adopted by the department. He also submits that all the Bills of Entry were not assessed at the transaction value and the assessments have been done by the proper officer only by applying the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules. He further submits that it is not open to the department to again increase the assessable value by resorting to the Valuation Rules; no appeals were filed by the department against the said Bills of Entry and thus the assessments have attained finality, but the impugned order is silent on this aspect. 4.5 He further submits that at the time of assessment of Bills of Entry, price of London Metal Exchange ('LME') was already available with the department; the Bills of Entry pertain to the period November 2020 to 31.08.2023, whereas the guidelines of Directorate of Valuation were issued on 15.11.2018 and the said guidelines were already available at the ti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... LME prices cannot have any applicability to the imports by the Appellant. He also submits that the actual sale price depends on various factors like availability of buyers, the quantity/volume of purchase, payment terms, negotiation skills of the buyer & seller, regularity of purchase and whether the purchaser is a one-time customer or a regular buyer and so on. He also submits that the LME prices can merely serve as a guide for settling the price between the buyer and seller and cannot be used to determine the assessable value of the imported goods which is required to be determined as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Valuation (Determination) of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007; however, where goods have been imported in an arm's length transaction where buyer and seller are not related and there is no extra consideration for the purchase, the transaction price cannot be rejected. 4.8 He further submits that in the present case, there is no allegation that the price is not the sole consideration for sale or that the buyer and the seller are related to each other; in the absence of this allegation, there can be no justification for rejection of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cular issued by the Department of Valuation which was issued on the basis of prices declared in the LME. 7. Further, we find that in the present case, during the period 01.09.2018 to 31.09.2023, the Appellant filed 183 Bills of Entry in respect of import of Aluminium Scrap which was imported from different countries and the assessment was finalized after following the due procedure, and Bills of Entry were assessed after proper scrutiny and verification by the concerned officer, and in certain cases, the valuation was also increased which was accepted by the Appellant. We further find that subsequently on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Directorate of Valuation, the department entertained the view that the Appellant mis-declared the value and not paid the correct customs duty. We find that once the assessment has been finalized and the department has not challenged the same, then subsequently on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Directorate of Valuation, the transaction value cannot be rejected because there is no evidence on record to show that the transaction value declared by the importer is not correct. Further, we find that these guidelines do not have any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould pass an order permitting clearance of those goods for home consumption. This flows from a reading of Section 47 of the Act. In terms of Sections 48 and 49, an importer is also entitled to warehouse the imported goods after the same have been unloaded at a customs station or even transhipped within 30 days therefrom. The goods can thereafter remain in the warehouse pending clearance for removal. 60. Undisputedly, a self-assessed BoE which is submitted by an importer, if accepted and endorsed by the proper officer, would be deemed to have been duly assessed. This clearly flows from the manner in which the word 'assessment' has been defined in Section 2(2) of the Act and is in any case, an issue that is no longer res integra, bearing in mind the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of ITC Ltd. vs. CCE - (2019) 17 SCC 46. ......... ....... 71. On an overall consideration of the statutory scheme governing the valuation of imports and reassessment, it becomes clear that the reasonable doubt which is spoken of in Rule 12 is indelibly connected to the aspect of the valuation of imported goods and the identification of the transaction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....requirement of communicating that material to the importer upon request. ....... ....... 84. We find ourselves unable to construe Rule 12(2) as contemplating any concession or waiver at least in explicit terms. All that Rule 12(2) stipulates is that the proper officer would intimate to the importer the grounds for doubting the declared value at its request. It is in the aforesaid context that we would thus have to adjudge whether the CESTAT was correct in holding that the exchange of communications amounted to a waiver or abandonment not just of the right to question and assail the reassessment but to impugn it in further proceedings in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act. 85. In our considered opinion, the perceived concession made in respect of the opinion harboured by the proper officer cannot possibly be interpreted or construed as detracting from or depriving the importer of the right to question the decision of the proper officer in accordance with law. The right to question the correctness of the decision of the proper officer, be it with respect to the formation of opinion or even on merits, is one which is protected by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be unjustified in enhancing the declared import values solely on the basis of NIDB data. It emphasized that transaction values cannot be rejected arbitrarily and that the authenticity of importer-issued invoices must be accepted unless discredited on the basis of cogent evidence. ...... ........ 103. The Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in M/s Gypsie Impex vs. Commissioner of Customs [Final Order No. 40131/2024 dated 5.2.2024] addressed the limitations besetting the usage of NIDB data as the sole basis for redetermining transaction values. It is pertinent to note that Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988, as analysed by the CESTAT in this decision, was similar to Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules. The CESTAT ruled in favour of the appellant, holding that NIDB data alone would be insufficient for value reassessment without corroborative evidence or contemporaneous import comparisons. This decision underscored the importance of comprehensive evidence and procedural compliance in customs disputes, cautioning against arbitrary reliance on NIDB data. 104. It becomes apparent from a reading of these decisions c....