Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 682 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - electronic goods including branded and non - branded flash memory cards - rejection of value declared by the appellant - redetermination/enhancement of value of goods as per NIDB data under Rules of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 - Confiscation - penalty - HELD THAT:- It is observed that the Custom Valuation Rules outline a detailed chronological methodology that should be adopted in order to reject and re – determine assessable value. Section 14 of the Customs Act 1962 read with Custom Valuation Rules makes it abundantly clear that transaction value in the ordinary course of commerce is to be taken as assessable value. In the event where transaction value is rejected thereafter Custom Valuation Rules need to be satisfied for enhancement of the value. In the instant case no basis of such re-assessment can be made out as the department has failed to warrant reasons for rejection of transaction value in the first place. It is observed that rejection of value declared on a Bill of Entry is a serious action that should be supported by compelling provision, evidence and justifiable reasons. Rule 5 is to be read subject to Rule 3 which should be read with Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 which brings us down to the very essence of the Valuation Rules that in order to re-determine assessed value, transaction value should be rejected based on cogent reasons and evidence. The transaction value of the appellant has been rejected merely on the ground that similar goods have been imported at higher value at various other custom stations without providing any evidence in support of their claim and failing to examine the applicability of Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules in the present case. It is found that neither the Adjudicating authority nor the Commissioner (Appeals) have established such circumstances as prescribed by law for rejection of transaction value and rejected it merely on the ground that goods have been imported at a higher value without properly examining the applicability of Rule 5 read with Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. In the present case no effort was made by the adjudicating authority to ascertain quality, quantity and characteristics of the goods of the contemporaneous import, the authorities have failed to carry out any test to ascertain that the goods of contemporaneous import are similar under what circumstances. Only reports of NIDB have been relied upon. No assessment with regards to comparable quantity and quality of the goods have been established by the Department when re-assessing the value of the said goods. Based on the facts we note that the data relied upon by the department does not wholly correspond to the time at which the investigation was conducted and different parameters ought to have been considered while adjudicating upon such serious allegations. Penalties - HELD THAT:- The department in its show cause notice issued to the appellant has not raised any discrepancy towards the declared quantity of goods in order to attract confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act. Neither from the records is it evident that any misdeclaration of value in respect of any entry has been made under the Customs Act nor was the Commissioner (Appeals) able to adduce any evidence regarding their claims - Reliance on the tribunal judgements in the case of WEST COAST PAPERS MILLS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI [2000 (10) TMI 478 - CEGAT, CHENNAI] has been correctly placed as the Hon’ble Tribunal has observed that penalty is not sustainable when bonafide of the importer are not in doubt and there is no intent to mis – declare the goods - In this view confiscation of the goods does not sustain and is set aside. The impugned orders are set aside - appeal allowed.
|