Krishna Impex International Vs Commissioner of Customs (ICD) (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT Delhi held that merely because there is admission by the importer does not absolve the department to act in compliance of the mandatory provisions. Thus, re-determination of value of goods without complying with section 14 and the Valuation Rules is not justifiable and hence transaction value declared by importer is accepted.
Facts- M/s Krishna Impex International has assailed the Order-in-Appeal dated 29.07.2011 upholding the Order-in-Original confirming the differential duty amount along with penalty and redemption fine under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods), Rules, 1988.
Conclusion- Hon’ble Apex Court in Eicher Tractors Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs 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.
Held 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 redetermining 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 redetermining the value of the imported goods. It is not even forthcoming that the overseas supplier has been paid consideration higher than the amount declared in the invoices. In the present case, the revenue has merely re-assessed the value on the basis of the statement of Shri Jhunjhunwala, which is not the prescribed requirement for reassessment of the value of the imported goods. The revenue has not discharged its burden and therefore, we conclude that the transaction value declared by the importer should form the basis of assessment and consequently, the enhanced value reassessed by the revenue is unsustainable.
