9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 85 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - Undervaluation of imported goods - rejection of transaction value - appellant s request for cross examination during personal hearing was denied - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - As regarding valuation law is well settled that only when the transaction value under Rule 4 is rejected then under Rule 3(ii) the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially through Rules 5 to 8 of the Rules. Conversely if the transaction value can be determined under Rule 4(1) and does not fall under any of the exceptions in Rule 4(2) there is no question of determining the value under the subsequent Rules. On perusal of the documents relied by the Adjudication Authority and considering the finding given by the respondent in the Order-in-Original No.COC-CUSTM-000-COM-021-16-17 dated 19.07.2016 on the very same issue regarding valuation of very same goods which was imported by M/s. Sarathi Impex Ltd there is no admissible evidence to compare the goods imported by the appellant with the Proforma Invoice pertaining to the brand BAIDA and Long Feng- LF-588 relied by adjudication authority to reject the transaction value. Conclusion - There is no material on record or comparable imports to reject the transaction value. Appeal allowed.
The core legal questions considered in this appeal revolve around the proper valuation of imported goods under the Customs Act, 1962, specifically:
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis 1. Validity of Rejection of Declared Transaction Value The legal framework governing customs valuation is primarily found in the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. Rule 4(1) mandates that the transaction value declared by the importer is the primary basis for customs valuation unless it falls under exceptions enumerated in Rule 4(2). Only if the transaction value is rejected under Rule 4(2) does the authority proceed sequentially through Rules 5 to 8 to determine value by other methods. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the declared value relying on proforma invoices pertaining to brands "BAIDA" and "Long Feng" (models LF-588 and LF-5820), which were alleged to represent higher values than those declared by the appellant for its imported goods. However, the appellant contended that the goods imported were of a different brand, "Maharaja" (models MR-588 and MR-5820), which differ materially in quality, design, and specifications from the brands relied upon by the authority. The appellant submitted commercial invoices supporting the declared value and argued that the proforma invoices used by the authority were not comparable goods under Rule 5, which requires identical or substantially similar quality goods sold at the same commercial level. Further, the appellant cited an earlier Order-in-Original where a similar issue was examined regarding valuation of similar goods imported by another party, M/s Sarathi Impex. In that case, despite investigation, no direct evidence of undervaluation was found, and the proceedings were dropped. This precedent was relied upon to demonstrate that the mere existence of higher values for different brands cannot justify rejection of the declared transaction value without admissible evidence of undervaluation. The Court emphasized that the authority must specify the parameters and basis for re-determining the transaction value under Rule 5 and cannot adopt the Rule in a blanket manner. The absence of admissible evidence to establish comparability or undervaluation led the Court to hold that the declared transaction value could not be rejected. The Court noted that reliance on proforma invoices of different brands without establishing identity or substantial similarity is legally impermissible. 2. Admissibility and Weight of Evidence: Email Communications and Statements under Section 108 The Respondent relied on email communications and statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act to support the claim of undervaluation and higher value of imported goods. The appellant challenged the admissibility of such email evidence, contending that it was relied upon without compliance with Section 138C of the Customs Act, which governs electronic records and their evidentiary value. The Court noted that statements recorded under Section 108 are admissible evidence. However, mere retraction of such statements does not invalidate them unless supported by other evidence. The Respondent cited precedents affirming the admissibility and probative value of statements recorded under Section 108, including cases where voluntary statements were held to be valid evidence despite retraction. Regarding electronic evidence, the Court recognized the appellant's contention that proper procedural compliance under Section 138C is required for admissibility. The impugned order did not demonstrate such compliance, undermining the weight of the email communications relied upon. 3. Denial of Cross-Examination and Principles of Natural Justice The appellant requested cross-examination during the personal hearing, which was denied by the Adjudicating Authority on the ground that allowing it would delay the proceedings. The appellant argued that denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice. The Respondent countered that quasi-judicial proceedings under the Customs Act do not mandate cross-examination as a matter of law. The Court referred to authoritative decisions confirming that denial of cross-examination in such proceedings is not per se violative of natural justice, especially where the record contains sufficient evidence and cross-examination is not obligatory. The Court found the denial of cross-examination legally permissible in the circumstances, noting the balance between procedural fairness and expeditious disposal of cases. 4. Imposition of Penalty under Sections 114AA and 112(a) of the Customs Act The Adjudicating Authority imposed penalty under Section 114AA for undervaluation and under Section 112(a) for customs fraud. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty under Section 114AA but upheld other penalties. The appellant challenged the validity of penalty imposition on the partners of the firm. The Court observed that the term "person" under the Customs Act includes individuals and entities involved in customs fraud. Section 140 of the Act makes partners liable for the acts of the firm. The penalty imposition on partners was thus legally sustainable. However, since the valuation itself was held valid, the penalty for undervaluation could not be sustained. 5. Application of Precedents and Legal Principles on Customs Valuation The appellant referred to several Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions to emphasize the settled legal position that transaction value under Rule 4(1) is the primary basis for customs valuation and can only be rejected on valid grounds supported by admissible evidence. The Court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd. and other decisions to reinforce the principle that the burden lies on the customs authorities to establish undervaluation with credible evidence. The Court also reiterated the sequential approach mandated under the Customs Valuation Rules, emphasizing that Rule 5 applies only after rejection of transaction value under Rule 4(2), and requires comparability of goods in quality and commercial level. Conclusions and Significant Holdings The Court held that there was no admissible evidence on record to reject the declared transaction value of the imported refillable plastic gas lighters. Reliance on proforma invoices of different brands without establishing identity or substantial similarity was legally impermissible. The email communications relied upon lacked compliance with statutory provisions governing electronic evidence and thus could not be given weight. Statements recorded under Section 108 are admissible, but retraction without corroboration does not invalidate them. The denial of cross-examination during quasi-judicial proceedings was held to be legally valid and not violative of natural justice principles. Penalties imposed on partners were sustainable under the Act, but penalty for undervaluation could not stand given the acceptance of declared transaction value. The Court summarized the core principle that the transaction value declared by the importer is the primary basis for customs valuation and can only be rejected on cogent, admissible evidence demonstrating undervaluation. The sequential valuation methodology under the Customs Valuation Rules must be strictly followed, and comparability of goods must be clearly established before rejecting declared value. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, affirming the declared transaction value and setting aside the penalty imposed for undervaluation.
|
