9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide his report dated 17.01.2014. What is therefore clear from the above, is the fact that the officers who conducted the first check had neither any basis nor any capacity, to declare/report as to the under-valuation of the imported cargo. This prompted the Revenue to assume that the importer had wrongly classified the items at Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 in the Bill of Entry, to be classifiable under CTH 8443 1600, 8443 1600, 8439 3010, 8439 3010 and 8508 1100 respectively. Based on the above Chartered Engineer's report, it appears that a statement of Operations Executive of the importer was recorded on 21.01.2014 wherein, the said person appears to have requested for releasing of the cargo without issuance of SCN and personal hearing as well, since they had already incurred heavy demurrage. The officer appears to have very promptly acceded to the above requests and consequently, passed the OIO No.01/2014 dated 14.02.2014. In the said OIO, the Original Authority has rejected the declared value as well as the classification of items at Nos. 1 to 5 in the Bill of Entry, classified the same as indicated above and also re-determined the declared value under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation [De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... document including invoice of the manufacturer or producer of the goods where the goods are imported from or through a person other than the manufacturer of goods, as considered necessary by the proper officer for valuation of the imported goods. Sub-rule (2) states that the declared value shall be accepted where the proper officer is satisfied about the truth and accuracy of the declared value after an enquiry in consultation with the importers. 13. Sub-rule (3) to Rule 3 deals with cases when the buyer and seller are related. We would not dilate on the said sub-rule for this is not required for the purpose of the present decision. As per sub-rule (4), where the value cannot be determined under sub-rule (1) to Rule 3, the transaction is to be valued by step wise applying Rules 4 to 9. Rule 4 deals with transaction value based on identical goods. Rule 5 deals with transaction value based on similar goods. Rule 6 deals with the determination of value where the transactional value cannot be determined under Rules 3, 4 and 5. Rules 7 and 8 deal with deductive value and computed value respectively. Rule 9 prescribes the residual method for computing the transaction value. What is imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 stipulates that on request of an importer, the proper officer shall intimate to the importer in writing the grounds, i.e. the reason for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to the imported goods. Further, the proper officer shall provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the importer before he makes the valuation in the form of final decision under sub-rule (1). 15. The requirements of Rule 12, therefore, can be summarised as under : (a) The proper officer should have reasonable doubt as to the transactional value on account of truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to the imported goods. (b) Proper officer must ask the importer of such goods further information which may include documents or evidence; (c) On receiving such information or in the absence of response from the importer, the proper officer has to apply his mind and decide whether or not reasonable doubt as to the truth or accuracy of the value so declared persists. (d) When the proper officer does not have reasonable doubt, the goods are cleared on the declared value. (e) When the doubt persists, sub-rule (1) to Rule 3 is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the suspicion must be based on 'certain reasons'." 5. Viewed in the context of the above binding precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court and when the same is applied to the facts of the present case before us, we have to only examine whether the rejection of the transaction value by authorities below is correct or not. We have extracted paragraph 11 of the Order-in-Original Supra wherein, the Original Authority has clearly brought out on record that the value declared by the importer, on first check, appeared to be very low, only thereafter did the officers of SIIB came into the picture, they also introduce a Chartered Engineer into the scenario as well, who has quite naturally enhanced the value, thereby not accepting the declared value. It is never the case of the Revenue that the parties were related, that there was any extra/on money exchanged between the importer and the exporter or that the value admitted in the bill of entry was influenced by any extraneous considerations/circumstances. Hence, as declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. Supra, we find that the Revenue has miserably failed in discharging the burden of proving in accordanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
