TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f an alleged computer printout is not proof of the existence of comparable imports; (2) assuming such a printout exists and the contents thereof are true, the question still remains whether the transaction evidenced by the said computer printout are comparable to the transaction of the appellant. The appellant will have to be given reasonable opportunity to establish (if he can) that the transactions are not comparable. - Decided in favor of assessee. - Civil Appeal Nos. 433-434 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 21-8-2014 - J. Chelameswar And A. K. Sikri,JJ. ORDER These are statutory appeals filed under Section 130(E) of the Customs Act, 1962 from the judgment and order dated 23.8.2005, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai in Appeal No. C/791 792/03/Mum. 2. The appellants imported two consignments of 2-4-6 Tricloro 1- 3-5 Triazine aggregating 74.10 MT from China under two Bills of Entry, the cost of which is declared by the appellants to be SG $ 750/- PMT equivalent to US $ 500/- PMT. The goods were provisionally assessed and allowed clearance on 17.9.1994. 3. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 25.9.2000 came ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Commissioner finalised the assessment by valuing the imported goods at US $ 1860/- PMT by an order dated 31.3.2001. 7. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants herein carried the matter in an appeal to the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals). By an order dated 8.8.2001, the said appeal was allowed wherein the appellate authority recorded the method of determination of the assessable value as per Rule 5 lacks specific evidence, therefore, the same is not legal and proper . 8. Revenue carried the matter in further appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. By an order dated 15.2.2002, the said Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals). On such remittance, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner confirming the enhancement of the value at US $ 1860 PMT CIF. Again, the matter was carried by the appellants to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal unsuccessfully. By an order dated 23.8.2005, which was impugned in the instant appeal, the appeal of the appellants herein was dismissed by the Tribunal. 9. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the assessment and demand of the customs duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mined in accordance with the rules made in this behalf.] 2... 3... 13. It can be seen from Section 14 that the value of the imported goods is deemed to be the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold, or offered for sale . The Section further stipulates that such price of the imported goods is to be determined in accordance with the rules made in that behalf. 14. The Government of India made rules known as Customs Valuation (Determination of the Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. Rule 3(i) 3. Determination of the method of valuation For the purpose of these rules- (i) the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value. stipulates that for the purpose of the rules, the value of the imported goods shall be the transaction value. Rule 3(ii) (ii) if the value cannot be determined under the provisions of clause (i) above, the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially through Rules 5 to 8 of these Rules. provides that where the value of the imported goods cannot be determined under Rule 3(i) then the same is to be determined in accordance with the various methods of determination (of the valueof the goods) provided under Rules 5 to 8 sequenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Where no sale referred to in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of this rule, is found, the transaction value of identical goods sold at a different commercial level or in different quantities or both, 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 changes referred to in sub-rule(2) of Rule 9 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. 19. In substance, Rule 5 enables the Revenue to determine the value of the imported goods on the basis of the id ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n substantially the same quantity etc. is a matter to be considered on the examination of the material relied upon by the Revenue. A reasonable opportunity must be given to the appellant to demonstrate (if at all) that the transactions relied upon by the Revenue are not comparable transactions. 24. In the absence of any material produced by the Revenue in proof of the alleged comparable imports at a higher value, the impugned order which eventually confirmed the original order of assessment by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs dated 31.3.2001 cannot be sustained for two reasons (1) the mere existence of an alleged computer printout is not proof of the existence of comparable imports; (2) assuming such a printout exists and the contents thereof are true, the question still remains whether the transaction evidenced by the said computer printout are comparable to the transaction of the appellant. The appellant will have to be given reasonable opportunity to establish (if he can) that the transactions are not comparable. 25. The impugned order and the original assessment order are therefore, set aside. However, it will be open to the respondent(revenue) to proceed against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
