Case Law Details
Commissioner of Customs Vs Hanuman Prasad & Sons (CESTAT Delhi)
The issue under consideration is whether the invoice represent the true transaction value in the international market?
CESTAT states that the brief facts are that the respondent importer of polyester knitted fabrics were filing Bill of Entry from time to time at ICD Sonepat on the basis of self assessment of duty on the declared transaction value. The Bills of Entry were assessed by Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs, by enhancing the value over and above the declared value. However, no speaking order was passed giving reasons for rejection of the declared value and enhancement thereof. It is only when the transaction value under rule 4 of the Valuation Rules is rejected that the transaction value is required to be determined by proceeding sequentially through rules 5 to 8. The decision of the Supreme Court in Century Metal Recycling also holds that if the declared transaction value is rejected, then it has to be determined in accordance with the procedure prescribed in rules 4 to 9. Learned counsel for the respondent has also emphasized that NIDB data cannot be the sole basis to reject the transaction value without any cogent reasons. As seen above, the importers had in writing accepted the transaction value and it is perhaps for this reason that they did not require any show cause notice to be issued to them or a personal hearing to be granted to them. The respondent is, therefore, not justified in asserting that the transaction value has been determined on the basis NIDB data. It was their acceptance of the value that formed the basis for determination of the value. The decisions relied upon by the respondent to support the contention sought to be raised are, therefore, of no benefit to them. The general observations made the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order that the value declared in the Bills of Entry were being enhanced uniformly by the Department for a considerable period of time was uncalled for. The Commissioner (Appeals) completely failed to advert to the crucial aspect that the importers had themselves accepted the enhanced value. The Commissioner (Appeals) in fact, proceeded to examine the matter as if the assessing officer had enhanced the declared value on the basis of other factors and not on the acceptance by the importers. This casual observation is not based on the factual position that emerges from the records of the case. Thus, for all the reasons above, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in setting aside the orders passed by the assessing officer on the Bills of Entry.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
