TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1320
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lared the value for the purpose of payment of Customs duty. The department, based on certain intelligence, suspected that the appellant was engaged in under valuation and inter alia, it was also alleged that the apart from import of certain cigarettes vide bill of entry no. 7727157 dated 22.08.2012, they had also imported similar cigarettes on several occasions in the past, which were also stated to be grossly undervalued. 1.2 The basis for the said allegation was that in respect of four consignments, out of seven consignments, the Certificate of origin (Coo) was showing different value as compared to declared value in Bills of Entry (BESs), which the department felt was the correct value. It was also alleged that the shipping bills of the load port in respect of these seven consignments, which were obtained by department through the local representative of shipping lines revealed that the value declared in said document was US$ 18 per thousand sticks, which was as also mentioned in Certificates of Origin, as against the declared values of US$ 5 per thousand sticks in BESs. 1.3 The department also recorded certain statements in respect of the said consignments in support that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly two documents namely, unauthenticated document akin to shipping bills stated to be filed at the port of export, which were collected by the department from the shipping agent in India, and also the certificate of origin (COO) in respect of four BEs out of seven consignments showing higher value. He has argued that no verification was carried out by the customs authorities at the port of export in Indonesia about the authenticity of the look-alike shipping bills documents produced by the shipping agent or the certificate of origin(COO) and thus it has no evidentiary value. The appellant had filed bills of entry on the basis of documents received from (M/s. Prime)and that had no connection whatsoever with the certificate of origin. Further, there is no evidence that they had any link with M/s. Pt. Djarum, Indonesia. He has also emphasized the fact that despite repeated references to contemporary imports at higher prices in Show Cause Notice and impugned order no such details have been brought on record by the department and that there is no other evidence indicating payment of any amount over and above the invoice price based to either Hong Kong supplier or Indonesian company on w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the given factual matrix, we now proceed to evaluate and analyse the arguments made by both the sides. While the department feels, as articulated by the Adjudicating Authority, that the two documents are sufficient to indicate that the actual value was different from the value declared by the appellant, whereas, the appellant says that those two documents are not having any evidentiary value inasmuch as the origin and authenticity of these two documents itself is unsubstantiated. They have relied on the judgement of S.C Visakhapatnam Vs. Truwoods Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (331) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.). 5.2 We find that while the country-of-origin certificate was apparently available in the file submitted by appellant itself, however, it was neither specifically produced by the appellant nor any claim for exception was made based on said certificate of origin (COO) and same was not part of any declaration by the party nor obtained officially by the department from the authorities issuing such origin certificate, and hence reliance placed on the said document, per se, is not tenable and proper. Insofar as the other document is concerned, which is apparently the shipping bill in respect of consign....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 661 (Tribunal), the Tribunal dealt with this issue. The relevant paragraph is cited below; "The export declaration produced before us is a barely legible photocopy. legible and tally correspond with the details of the imports made by the appellant. The details of the consignment importer's name, the ship carrying the cargo are The declaration was annexed to the notice issued by the Department which has the document. There are no signatures of any Customs or other Government not specified the manner of its acquisition or the person from whom it acquired shown to come within the purview of Section 139 (1) of the Act. The reasoning of officers on it. For such a document to be accepted as evidence it will have to be the Tribunal in East Punjab Traders v. CCE which was confirmed by the Supreme Court that photocopy of a document which was not authenticated would not be admissible evidence would apply to this document. The presence in it of details corresponding to details of the import made would not constitute required authentication. Such details would be available to a large number of persons who could therefore fabricate such documents. In Mehta Impex v. CCE, 1990 (45)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uineness of those documents, the CESTAT has kept in m-and the provisions of Section 139 of the Customs Act and has relied upon various judgments of the Tribunal on this issue." 5.8 We have also gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Calcutta Vs. South India Television (Pvt. Ltd.) 2007 (214) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), wherein, similar issue was involved. The key issue for determination was whether the value of the consignments in question can be enhanced based on the export declaration under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules made by the foreign supplier. The Tribunal, while deciding the issue, held that Xerox copies or export declaration, even though procured from Hong Kong Customs, would not make such genuine declarations and accordingly held that the export declaration made by the Hong Kong supplier cannot be made the basis from increasing the value in good in India. Paragraph 3 is cited below; "3. The above arguments of the importer were rejected. The show cause notice and the demand levied was confirmed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the matter was carried in appeal to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lue. Under Section 2(41), "value" is defined to mean value determined in accordance with Section 14(1) of the Act. Section 14 of the Customs Act. 1962 is the sole repository of law is conceptual meaning governing valuation of goods. The Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 have been framed only in respect of imported goods. There are no rules governing the valuation of export goods. That respondent-importer alleging mis-declaration regarding the price. There is no allegation of must be done based on Section 14 itself. In the present case, the Department has charged the mis-declaration in the context of the description of the goods. In the present case, the evidence of prices of contemporaneous imports of like goods. It is for the Department to prove allegation is of under-invoicing. The charge of under-invoicing has to be supported by that the apparent is not the real. Under Section 2(41) of the Customs Act, the word "value 15 provisions of Section 14(1). The value to be declared in the Bill of Entry is the value referred to defined in relation to any goods to mean the value determined in accordance with the above and not merely the invoice price. On a plain reading of Section 14(1) and S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent relies on declaration made in the exporting country, it has to show how such declaration was procured. We may clarify that strict rules of evidence do not apply to adjudication proceedings. They apply strictly to the courts' proceedings. However, even in adjudication proceedings, the AO has to examine the probative value of the documents on which reliance is placed by the Department in support of its allegation of under-valuation. Once the Department discharges the burden of proof to the above extent by producing evidence of contemporaneous imports at higher price, the onus shifts to the importer to establish that the invoice relied on by him is valid. Therefore, the charge of under-invoicing has to be supported "deemed value". Therefore, invoice price can be disputed. However, it is for the Department to by evidence of prices of contemporaneous imports of like goods. Section 14(1) speaks of prove that the invoice price is incorrect. When there is no evidence of contemporaneous imports at a higher price, the invoice price is liable to be accepted. The value in the export declaration may be relied upon for ascertainment of the assessable value under the Customs Valuation Rul....