Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 732 - CESTAT NEW DELHIValuation - Was the Commissioner (Appeals) correct in upholding the acceptance of the declared assessable value by the Adjudicating authority in respect of some Bills of Entry? - determination of value based on contemporaneous imports instead of determining it on the basis of the Chartered Engineer’s certificate under Rule 7? - HELD THAT:- If the officer has reason to doubt the truth and accuracy of the transaction value, he can call for information including documents and evidence. If the information and evidence is presented and after examining it or if no information or evidence as called for is presented, if the proper office has reasonable belief then it shall be deemed that the value cannot be determined as per Rule 3 (i.e., based on transaction value with additions, if necessary). While the officer can, in the first place call for information and evidence if he has reason to doubt, at the second stage, he should have not just some reason to doubt but a reasonable doubt. If he has such reasonable doubt, then the transaction value can be rejected. The grounds on which the proper officer may raise doubts about the truth and accuracy of the transaction value have been illustrated in explanation 1 (iii) to Rule 12. The list is inclusive and not exhaustive. Thus, if the proper officer has reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the value declared, it can be rejected. If this threshold is crossed or is undisputed, then we need to examine which of the Rules 4, 5, 7, 8 or 9 should be applied and if the sequence in which these Rules must be applied has been correctly followed. Both the lower authorities have found that the grounds for rejection of transaction values in respect of some Bills of Entry were absent in the case. We do not find anything in the appeal which convinces us that there was indeed not only a reason to doubt but also reasonable doubt which would warrant rejection of the transaction value under Rule 12. The fact that DRI officers had obtained a certificate from the Chartered Engineer is irrelevant to the case. The Chartered Engineer’s certificate determines value through Deductive method (as per Rule 7). Valuation under Rule 7 becomes relevant only if the requirements for rejection of the transaction value under Rule 12 are first met and then it is also found that the value cannot be determined as per Rules 4 and 5. It is found strange that the Customs department which has access to all the import data in its system requires the importer, who has no such access to provide contemporaneous import data. We also find it extremely unlikely that nobody else in the country has imported the goods either identical or similar to the goods imported in these Bills of Entry which include such common items as multi-cable chargers and laptop bags. The submission of the Revenue that there were no contemporaneous imports of either identical goods or of similar goods as no evidence has been produced before us, such as, say, a report from the Customs EDI system that the disputed goods including such common goods such as ‘laptop bags’, ‘chargers’, etc. or similar goods were not imported by anyone else except the respondents in these appeals, cannot be accepted - Therefore, there was no ground to not follow Rules 4 and 5 and directly move to Rule 7 in the factual matrix of this case. The Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in holding that the value should be determined based on contemporaneous imports and for that purpose remanding the matter to original authority. The impugned orders in both these appeals must be sustained. The impugned orders are upheld and Revenue’s appeals are rejected.
|