9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsignments of Tussah Silk Yarn, 33/37D, A/B/C/2A Grade in hanks covered under Bills of Entry No. 872014 dated 12.9.05, 891715 dated 14.10.05, 452552 dated 4.5.7, 593789 dated 11.5.07, 608261 dated 3.7.07, 624007 dated 29.8.07 and 824536 dated 12.5.08. The goods were assessed and cleared by customs at the respective ports on the basis of the prices mentioned in the invoices submitted with the said Bills of Entry, except in few cases where the value was enhanced. Shri Jhunjhunwala submitted a pay order of Rs.10 lakhs towards the differential duty. 3. On the allegations, that Shri Jhunjhunwala appeared to have imported the consignments of Tussah Silk Yarn by way of mis-declaring the actual value of the imported consignment covered under the referred bills of entry in the name of his firm from M/s. Zhejiang Cathaya International Co. China and M/s. Zhejiang Cathaya Light, China and he was controlling and managing all fraudulent activities of the said firm and used to raise invoices, showing lesser value than the actual value of the said goods and use to file the same before the customs authorities with an intent to avoid customs duty, show cause notice dated 16.04.2010 was issued. As t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to some extents. As regards to the Bills of Entry No.872014/12.09.2005, I have declared 17.60 USD but the actual value might be USD 19.25. In respect of B/E No.89175/14.10.2005, the reported value wax 17.60, however the actual value might be around USD 19.25. In respect of B/E No.452522/04.05.2007, 593783/11.05.007, 608261/31.07.2007 and 624007/09.08.2007, the declared value USD/6.25, 15.40, 15.40. However, the value might be around 20.10 - and in respect of B/E 537241/ 30.05.2005 the declared value as 14.50, however, the actual value might be 19.25 USD and again import of Tassah Silk import vide B/E No.824536/ 12.05.2008 the declared value was USD15 but the actual value might be 20.25. Further, I state that am ready to pay the differential duty as demanded by the department against my import of Tassah Silk against the abovementioned Bills of Entries. The above statement tendered by me is true and factual and tendered by m without and pressure, duress or threat." From the contents of the statement, it appears that there is no positive admission to the actual valuation as Shri Jhunjhunwala has repeatedly used the word "might be" which in common parlance denotes that it "cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessable value has to be on the basis of cogent reasons and evidence on record. The onus to prove the allegation of undervaluation has been cast on the department. The allegation of undervaluation is not sustainable unless it is proved that additional consideration was involved or any of the exceptions in terms of Rule 4(2) are attracted. The legal provisions required the proper officer to intimate the grounds for enhancing the value and providing reasonable opportunity before taking the final decision on the issue of valuation. As the rejection of declared value on B/E is a serious issue, repeatedly, it has been interpreted by judicial forums that the primary requirements for redetermination of the value is that the transaction value should be rejected for cogent reasons as prescribed in CVR. 10. The issue of rejection of the declared value on the ground of undervaluation and reassessment of the valuation has been the subject matter of consideration in several decisions. The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision in the case of Junaid Kudia versus Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Import -II -(2024) 16 Centax 503, where the Tribunal, observed that rejection o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arrived at and since such exercises has not been done in this case by the department, the enhancement of the assessable value was rejected. Referring to the provision of Section 14 of the Act and the Customs Valuation Rules as interpreted by the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Eicher Tractors Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs-2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC), it was concluded that the declared price could be rejected only with cogent reason by undertaking the exercise as to on what basis the assessing authority could hold that the paid price was not the sole consideration of the transaction value and since there is no such exercises done by the assessing authority to reject the price declared in the Bills of Entry, the Order-in-Orginal was held to be erroneous and the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected. 14. Considering the fact of the present case, we would like to refer to the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in CMR Nikkei India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs-2022 SCC OnLine CESTAT 2765, where the dispute was regarding the valuation of the goods imported by the appellant and the assessing authority reassessed the imported goods at values higher than what ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 009, itself proves the guilt of the appellant. We completely disagree with these findings as acceptance of revised valuation cannot be treated as a voluntary consent by the importer. We would like to rely on the decision of the Principal Bench in River Side Impex Vs. Commr. -2023 SCC OnLine CESTAT 924, where the issue of admission by the Authorized Representative of the appellant and also voluntary payment made towards discharging of duty was considered, inter alia, observing as under: "21. It appears that the sole ground for the confirmation is the admission of the authorized representative of the appellant in his statement dated 20.01.2017. The said statement is perused vide which the said authorized representative has accepted the reassessed value and offered to pay differential duty along with the applicable fine and penalty...............................The voluntary payment hence cannot be called as admission of the appellant towards alleged mis-declaration for value from the above discussion. Since it is apparent that the Department has not followed the statutory procedure nor there was any mis-declaration of quantity as alleged, the mere acceptance of the re-assessed valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which specifically casts mandatory duty on the department to record reasons as to why the declared value is being rejected and the exercise of re-determination has to be based in terms of the Valuation Rules. Repeatedly, the Courts have laid much emphasis on the principle that even where there is admission by the importer, the department is required to satisfy the compliance of the provisions of section 14 and the Valuation Rules while re-determining the value of the goods. Merely because there is admission by the importer does not absolve the department to act in compliance of the mandatory provisions. Recording the basis for such an enhancement is the sine-quo-non of re-determination. From the perusal of the records of the case, we do not find that the department has made any effort to ascertain quality, quantity, characteristics of the goods of contemporaneous import from which the basis for such reassessment can be made out. In fact, there is no evidence at all to show that the department had carried out any exercise for ascertaining the basis for re-determining the value of the imported goods. It is not even forthcoming that the overseas supplier has been paid consideration hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
