Case Law Details
Acmechem Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Mumbai)
Doubtlessly, rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 empowers rejection of declared upon evidence to the contrary and, by default too, upon non-satisfaction of queries sought by the assessing officer. Two aspects are critical to such rejection: requiring such evidence to be furnished by importer as is necessary for acceptance of declared value as transaction value and, should the declared value be discarded, adoption of such value as is validated by the sequential alternatives in the Rules. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the necessary pre-requisite in rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 had been set in motion; indeed, the entire process, commencing with failure to issue notice of intent and culminating in refusal to issue speaking order, appears to be devoid of any cognition of the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, resort to rule 5 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 should have established that the similar goods contemporaneously imported had been priced so at the time of its import. There is a glaring lack of details that impacts credibility to adoption of the assessable value in bill of entry no. 782992/13.02.09 even though the description therein may correspond to that in the bills of entry impugned before us. That fulfillment of necessary, without fulfillment of satisfactory, condition mars the revision of assessable value.
Even though the principles of natural justice stand breached by both the lower authorities, that need not concern the disposal of this dispute which, by the absence of evidence to displace the declared value, calls for the impugned order be set aside on merit.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT MUMBAI ORDER
This appeal of M/s Acmechem Ltd arises from the enhancement of assessable value from US$ 2.95 per kg to US$ 3.95 per kg on the import of ‘DCBS N’ or ‘N Dicyclohexyl-2 Benzothiazole Sulfenamide’, a rubber accelerator, against five bills of entry comprising five consignments of 12000 kgs each that was upheld by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai -II in order-in-appeal no. 32-36 (Gr IIA)/2010 (JNCH)/IMP-28-32 dated 22nd July 2010 which is impugned herein.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
