KVS Traders Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that rejection of declared value in terms of rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 solely on the basis of various letters of different authorities without examining contemporaneous NIDB data is unsustainable in law.
Facts- The Appellant had imported “PU Coated Fabric” from china and declared the transaction value as USD 0.82 Per Square Meter. The said declared transaction value was rejected. Assessment value was done USD 0.86 as Per Square Meter.
The Assessing officer raised query that value appears at lower side as compared to the NIDB data of similar imports at other ports and also contemporaneous import at the same port.
Commissioner (A) has uphold the order concluding that once the enhanced value has been accepted and duty has been paid by importer than the assessment cannot be challenged.
Conclusion- Held it is noticed that it has not examined the contemporaneous NIDB data, but relies solely on various letters of different authorities, like directorate of valuation, DRI or DC (SIIB). Such reports cannot be any basis of rejection of declared value in terms of rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The rejection can only be done on the basis of data of contemporaneous imports.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
These Appeals have been filed by M/s. KVS Traders, A K Fashions, Kumar Impex., against rejection of declared transaction value.
2. The Appellant had imported “PU Coated Fabric” from china and declared the transaction value as USD 0.82 Per Square Meter. The said declared transaction value was rejected. Assessment value was done USD 0.86 as Per Square Meter.
2.1 The Assessing officer raised query that value appears at lower side as compared to the NIDB data of similar imports at other ports and also contemporaneous import at the same port. The appellant in response to the said query replied as under:
“Value declared as per transaction price u/s 14 (1) of Customs Act 1962. You may load the value as per CVR 2007 on the basis of contemporaneous import of identical / similar goods at your port. We agree to assess the value as per group practice to save from demurrage and detention charges”
2.2 The value declared in bills of entry filed by the appellant was rejected and value order enhanced without passing any speaking order. The appellants took the matter to Commissioner (Appeals), after hearing the appellant remanded the matter back to the original Adjudicating Authority for passing a speaking order under Section 17(5) of the customs act, 1962.
2.3 Thereafter, the Original Adjudicating Authority after going through the RMS instructions, the valuation Study No. 17 dated 05.03.2020 issued by the Director General of valuation and Letter dated 08.09.2017 issued by Deputy Director, DRI, Regional, Gandhidham and letter dated 12.09.2017 issued by DC(SIIB), Customs House, Mudra regarding import of PU leather Cloth/Fabric arrived at the conclusion that the average price of USD 0.86 for PU Coated Fabric having thickness of 0.50mm per meter. Thereafter, in terms of Section 17(4) and Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. Relying on the consent letter given by the importer held that there is no need to pass a speaking order in all the cases.
2.4 The said order in original was upheld by the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), While upholding the said order the Commissioner (Appeals) has come to the conclusion that once the enhanced value has been accepted and duty has been paid by importer than the assessment cannot be challenged. While doing so he relied on the following cases:
