9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19, C/61230/2019, C/61231/2019, C/61232/2019, C/61233/2019, C/61234/2019, C/61235/2019, C/61236/2019, C/61237/2019, C/61238/2019, C/61239/2019, C/61240/2019, C/61241/2019, C/61242/2019, C/61243/2019, C/61244/2019, C/61245/2019, C/61246/2019, C/61247/2019, C/61248/2019, C/61249/2019, C/61250/2019, C/61251/2019, C/61252/2019, C/61253/2019, C/61254/2019, C/61255/2019, C/61256/2019, C/61257/2019, C/61258/2019, C/61259/2019, C/61260/2019, C/61261/2019, C/61262/2019, C/61263/2019, C/61264/2019, C/61265/2019, C/61266/2019, C/61267/2019, C/61268/2019, C/61269/2019, C/61270/2019, C/61271/2019, C/61272/2019, C/61273/2019, C/61274/2019, C/61275/2019, C/61276/2019, C/61277/2019, C/61278/2019, C/61279/2019, C/61280/2019, C/61407/2019, C/60084/2020 MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Krishna Mohan K. Menon and Ms. Parul Sachdeva, Advocates for the Appellant Shri Siddharth Jaiswal and Shri Aniram Meena, Authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed the bills-of-entry on the enhanced value. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant filed appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the same; hence the present appeals. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 4.1 The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law, and binding judicial precedents on identical issue. 4.2 The learned Counsel further submits that the impugned order is against the provision of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. He further submits that it is a settled law that the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value i.e. the price which is actually paid or is payable for the goods when sold for export to India. He further submits that the transaction value declared by the Appellant at the time of filing bills-of-entry in question satisfies all the ingredients specified in Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. He further submits that the department has not proved that any of the exceptions specified i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Appellant's own case, wherein it has been held that enhancement of value solely on the basis of coerced consent letters, DGoV Circular and in the absence of contemporaneous import data or any investigation is absolutely illegal and incorrect. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following decisions: * CCE & ST, Noida Vs Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt Ltd - 2019 (365) ELT 3 (SC) * Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST, Noida - 2017 (7) GSTL 82 (Tri-All) * Century Metal Recycling Pvt Ltd Vs UOI - 2019 (367) ELT 3 (SC) * Guru Rajendra Metalloys India Pvt Ltd Vs Commr of Customs, Ahmedabad -2020 (374) ELT 617 (Tri-Ahmd) * Supreme Industries Ltd Vs CBIC - 2021 (377) ELT 698 (Bom) * Agarwal Metals & Alloys Vs Commissioner of Customs, Kandala - 2021 (378) ELT 155 (Tri-Ahmd) * Sunland Alloys Vs Commissioner of Customs - 2020-TIOL-1235-CESTAT-AHM 4.8 The learned Counsel further submits that the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs Hanuman Prasad & Sons [in Appeal No. C/51601/2019] vide Final Order dated 20.10.2020 has held that in terms of provisions of Section 17 of the Customs Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent letters' as the same have been obtained under pressure to clear the goods to avoid any further delay. He also submits that the enhanced value has been arrived at on the basis of LME price of prime metal minus discount given in DGoV Circular; this clearly shows that the enhancement of value is not on the basis of contemporaneous import data but it is only based on DGoV Circular which cannot be the basis for enhancement as held by the Tribunal in the case of Guru Rajendra Metalloys India Pvt Ltd Vs Commr of Customs, Ahmedabad - 2020 (374) ELT 61 (Tri-Ahmd). 4.13 He further submits that the Appellant was not given the NIDB/LME data or whatsoever document relied upon for enhancement of the value, which is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the transaction value or the invoice value cannot be rejected arbitrarily without giving any valid reasons. He also submits that even assuming without admitting that the letters were not coerced, the Assessing Authority still ought to have followed the principle of valuation as laid down under the Customs Act and Customs Valuation Rules. 4.14 The learned Counsel further submits that the Hon'ble Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the basis of related party transaction and LME prices as bench mark based on contemporaneous import data which indicates the undervaluation done by the Appellant. 8. As regards the related party transaction, we find that the departmental officers never even claimed the re-assessment done by them on the basis of related party transaction and it is the Commissioner (Appeals) who, for the first time, has made out a new case of related party transaction in order to distinguish the binding precedents in favour of the assessee. Further, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has unilaterally and erroneously relied upon the Order-in-Original dated 14.12.2017 to come to a conclusion that CMR America LLC, USA is a related party of the Appellant. This finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is perverse for the reason that the said OIO was rendered in the case of M/s Sanjeevani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt Ltd and not in the case of the Appellant and imported the said OIO without assessing the facts of the present case reflects complete non-application of mind. Further, we find that the said OIO, which has been relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), was even set aside by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the said document is accurate and complete in respect of the information disclosed therein, the authenticity and validity of documents filed in support thereof and the import itself being compliant with any restriction or prohibition imposed in relation to those goods by law. 59. Upon the proper officer being satisfied that the goods entered for home consumption are not prohibited and import duty has been paid, it would pass an order permitting clearance of those goods for home consumption. This flows from a reading of Section 47 of the Act. In terms of Sections 48 and 49, an importer is also entitled to warehouse the imported goods after the same have been unloaded at a customs station or even transhipped within 30 days therefrom. The goods can thereafter remain in the warehouse pending clearance for removal. 60. Undisputedly, a self-assessed BoE which is submitted by an importer, if accepted and endorsed by the proper officer, would be deemed to have been duly assessed. This clearly flows from the manner in which the word 'assessment' has been defined in Section 2(2) of the Act and is in any case, an issue that is no longer res integra, bearing in mind the decision of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve to be informed by a degree of objectivity. ....... ....... 78. The key takeaways from the decision in Century Metal Recycling would thus be the reasonable doubt being based on empirical and legally justifiable factors illustratively spelt out in Rule 12, the mandate to record reasons in support of the formation of that opinion and the mandatory requirement of communicating that material to the importer upon request. ....... ....... 84. We find ourselves unable to construe Rule 12(2) as contemplating any concession or waiver at least in explicit terms. All that Rule 12(2) stipulates is that the proper officer would intimate to the importer the grounds for doubting the declared value at its request. It is in the aforesaid context that we would thus have to adjudge whether the CESTAT was correct in holding that the exchange of communications amounted to a waiver or abandonment not just of the right to question and assail the reassessment but to impugn it in further proceedings in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act. 85. In our considered opinion, the perceived concession made in respect of the opinion harboured by the proper officer cannot possibly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ..... 100. Insofar as the aspect of whether the enhancement or reevaluation of the 'declared value' can be based solely on the data available in the NIDB, in Agarwal Foundries, the Hyderabad Bench of the CESTAT had held that the customs authorities would be unjustified in enhancing the declared import values solely on the basis of NIDB data. It emphasized that transaction values cannot be rejected arbitrarily and that the authenticity of importer-issued invoices must be accepted unless discredited on the basis of cogent evidence. ...... ........ 103. The Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in M/s Gypsie Impex vs. Commissioner of Customs [Final Order No. 40131/2024 dated 5.2.2024] addressed the limitations besetting the usage of NIDB data as the sole basis for re-determining transaction values. It is pertinent to note that Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988, as analysed by the CESTAT in this decision, was similar to Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules. The CESTAT ruled in favour of the appellant, holding that NIDB data alone would be insufficient for value reassessment without corroborative evidence or contemporaneous import comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
