9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods in the presence of representative of CHA & found to contain food supplement as per invoice & B/E attached. NOC from FSSAI Accredit Lab & AQ NOC attached. COO Poland. The goods are supplied by M/s Olimp Lab Spzoo Poland. The foreign supplier is the manufacturer. The High Sea Sales agreement attached." 3. It appeared to the officers that the declared value of the goods was lower than the values in the contemporaneous data of the similar goods imported and a query was raised on 10.06.2019 on the customs EDI system. The importer neither responded to the query nor produced any document to substantiate its claim and, therefore, a personal hearing was fixed on 09.07.2019 and 10.07.2019. The appellant's representative Shri Yogesh Kumar Dahiya, attended personal hearing and submitted a letter supporting the declared values. After considering the submissions made and holding personal hearing, the Deputy Commissioner compared the value of the goods with other contemporaneous data of imports as mentioned in Table C of the Order-in-Original which reads as below: TABLE-C Sr No. of item in Table A under paragraph 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4,211/-. 6. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds that the order of the Deputy Commissioner was passed without giving them an opportunity to present their case; did not provide reasons for rejection of the declared value on the enhancement of the value and that the NIDB alone cannot be a basis for rejecting the declared value. The Commissioner (Appeal) passed the impugned order in which he recorded that the contention that no opportunity was granted to the appellant for hearing was incorrect as Shri Yogesh Kumar Dahiya had appeared before the Deputy Commissioner for hearing and made his submissions. He further held that the impugned order is a very reasoned one wherein the reasons for rejecting the declared value have been given and that the value of the goods has been enhanced on the basis of the contemporaneous import data and a complete comparison chart has been made. He held that it was a well reasoned and long order which runs into 11 pages. 7. The appellant filed this appeal on the following grounds: (i) The Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to analyse the submissions and do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the valuation has to be done in terms of section 14 of the Customs Act, which provides that such value shall be the price actually paid or payable for the goods for delivery at the time and place of importation subject to the following conditions. (a) Buyer and seller are not related. (b) Price is a sole consideration of sale. (c) Other conditions specified in the Rules made in this behalf. 12. The rules made in this behalf are the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. Rule 3 states that valuation of imported goods shall be the transaction value adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10. Rule 10 indicates some costs and services whose value has to be added to the transaction value. Rule 3 further states that if the value cannot be determined as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 3, transaction value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially through rules 4 to 9. Rule 4 states that the transaction value of identical goods sold for export to India and imported about the same time as goods being valued shall be the value. Rule 5 states that the transaction value of similar goods for exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, year of manufacture or production; (e) the non declaration of parameters such as brand, grade, specifications that have relevance to value; (f) the fraudulent or manipulated documents." 14. If the transaction value is rejected under rule 12 then the value of identical goods must be considered and if it is not available and the value of similar goods must be considered and if the value of identical or similar goods were both not available then the value can be deducted by considering the price at which such goods are sold in wholesale and after certain deductions. If such prices are also not available then the value can be computed by considering the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Table we cannot make out as to which Customs House the goods in these Bills of Entry were imported from and in what quantities and from which country. Further, we find that the assessable value in these Bills of Entry were given in Rupees whereas the declared values in the Bill of Entry are in US dollars. It is not clear of what rate of exchange is applied to convert rupees into dollars to re-determine the assessable value under Rule 5. 17. In view of above, we find that rejection of the transaction value by the Deputy Commissioner is not in accordance with law. Consequently, its re-determination under Rule 5 cannot also sustain. We find that in the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) did not discuss any issue related to rejection of transaction value and re-determination of the values. It appears that he was only impressed by the fact that the order of the Deputy Commissioner was of 11 pages. Apart from that there is no finding whatsoever of the Commissioner (Appeals) as to why he was upholding the rejection of the transaction value and re-determination under Rule 5. 18. In view of above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
