9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods and finished goods from its group companies located abroad. In view of the fact that its transactions of import are between related parties, the case of the First Petitioner was registered with the Special Valuation Branch in pursuance of instructions set out in a Circular dated 23 February 2001 of the Central Board of Excise and Customs. On 19 April 2012, a letter was addressed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, GATT Valuation Cell to the First Petitioner calling upon it to submit relevant documents failing which, it was stated, that the revenue deposit of one percent would be increased to five percent. In response, the Petitioners submitted documents on 18 May 2012. A personal hearing was held on 5 November 2012 after which the Petitioners submitted further documents on 17 December 2012, 20 February 2013 and 25 February 2013. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs passed the impugned order dated 19 May 2013 by which the disclosed transaction value was rejected and the value of the imported goods was loaded in terms of the directions contained in the order. 4. An order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs in the GATT Valuation Cell is subject to an appeal before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for the purposes of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or any other law for the time being in force, the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value of such goods, that is to say, the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India for delivery at the time and place of importation, where the buyer and seller of the goods are not related and price is the sole consideration for the sale subject to such other conditions as may be specified in the rules made in this behalf. Under the proviso, the rules can stipulate the circumstances under which the buyer and seller shall be deemed to be related, the manner of determination of the value in respect of goods when there is no sale or when the buyer and seller are related or the price is not the sole consideration of the sale and the manner in which the value declared by the importer or exporter may be accepted or rejected. 8. The Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 ("the Rules") have been framed inter alia in pursuance of the provisions of Section 14. Rule 3(1) provides that subject to Rule 12, the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value adjusted in acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t :- (i) This rule by itself does not provide a method for determination of value, it provides a mechanism and procedure for rejection of declared value in cases where there is reasonable doubt that the declared value does not represent the transaction value; where the declared value is rejected, the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially in accordance with rules 4 to 9. (ii) The declared value shall be accepted where the proper officer is satisfied about the truth and accuracy of the declared value after the said enquiry in consultation with the importers. (iii) The proper officer shall have the powers to raise doubts on the truth or accuracy of the declared value based on certain reasons which may include - (a) the significantly higher value at which identical or similar goods imported at or about the same time in comparable quantities in a comparable commercial transaction were assessed; (b) the sale involves an abnormal discount or abnormal reduction from the ordinary competitive price; (c) the sale involves special discounts limited to exclusive agents; (d) the misdeclaration of goods in parameters such as description, quality, quantity, country of origin, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of rule 3(1) would come into operation. On the other hand, if the importer fails to supply information or if the proper officer still has reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the value declared despite the information, subrule (2) requires him to intimate the importer in writing of the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared, on the request of the importer. The object of doing so is to enable the importer to have a fair opportunity to meet the grounds of doubt entertained by the proper officer. Rule 12(2) stipulates a requirement of a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Such an opportunity can have meaning only if the importer is apprised of the grounds on the basis of which the transaction value is doubted by the proper officer. In the absence of a disclosure of the grounds on which the doubt is entertained, the importer would not know of the case against him nor would he be in a position to explain why the doubt which the proper officer entertains as to the truth or accuracy of the value is incorrect. Hence, before the proper officer proceeds to reject the declare value, he is under a mandate to furnish the grounds in writing for doubting th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the quasi judicial order which the authority would pass would be the same as the order in original dated 19 March 2013. This is clearly indicative of the fact that the Deputy Commissioner of Customs has a closed mind and treats a compliance with the principles of natural justice as a mere formality. Hence, while we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back for fresh decision after complying with the requirements of Rule 12, we direct the Commissioner of Customs to assign the case to some other officer, other than the officer by whom the impugned order is passed. We record our disapproval of the manner in which the affidavit in reply has been drafted. Counsel for the Revenue, in fact, stated during the hearing that the aforesaid addition was made by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs on his own accord, without reference to Counsel, and even suggested that the offending part may be expunged. 15. In the circumstances, we are allowing the petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 19 March 2013 of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, GATT Valuation Cell, Mumbai. We direct that the proceedings shall be remanded back for a decision afresh. If the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
