Surbhit Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai)
The appeals arose from an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (NS-I), JNCH, Nhava Sheva, confirming rejection of the declared transaction value of imported melamine and imposing Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD), interest, redemption fines, and penalties on the importing companies and associated individuals. The imports involved 38 consignments by Surbhit Impex Pvt. Ltd. (SIPL) and B.M. Jain & Sons Pvt. Ltd. (BMJSPL), the latter having merged with SIPL pursuant to an NCLT order dated 06.05.2022. The investigation was initiated by DRI based on intelligence that the importers had declared the value marginally below the ADD threshold specified in Notification No. 10/2010-Cus. dated 19.02.2010 to neutralise ADD, despite international prices having declined as per ICIS data.
The Commissioner rejected the transaction value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, redetermined a lower value, and imposed ADD on the differential amount. Significant penalties under Sections 112(a), 114A, and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 were also imposed on the companies, directors, and other alleged collaborators.
The Appellants contended that 27 consignments were purchased on High Sea Sale basis between January 2013 and June 2014 at prices ranging from USD 1530 to USD 1554 PMT. They argued that Rule 12 permits rejection of declared value only when there is reasonable doubt based on specified grounds, such as significantly higher values of identical goods imported contemporaneously or abnormal discounts. In the present case, the declared value was higher than the value alleged by the Department, and there was no misdeclaration regarding description, quality, quantity, or country of origin. They submitted that rejection of transaction value merely on suspicion based on ICIS publications was impermissible.
