Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.14 That the Adjudicating Authority has erroneously adopted Rule 9 of CVR, 2007 to reject the transaction value by adopting the actual value of the nearest period whereas the fact remains that the prices declared to the customs were the prices which were actually paid to the suppliers. As per law the only ground for rejection of transaction value can be that enumerated in Rule 12 of the CVR, 2007. Rule 12 requires that the proper officer should have reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the value declared to empower him to ask the importer to furnish further information including documents, etc. There is nothing on record to show that the department sought documents from the Appellants which the appellants did not provide. The only reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the value declared could be in connection with the 8 Bills of Entry for which four invoices and five export declarations were procured by the department from the Belgium Customs. Even the documents procured from Belgium Customs are not admissible in law in view of his above submissions. 14 | P a g e C/10559-10563,10830/2020 3.15 That as per Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Rule 3 (1) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, the price actually paid is to be considered as the transaction value. The price, therefore, which was actually paid to M/s. KorcoAB, Sweden, M/s The Crown Commercial House, Hong Kongand M/s Affluent Enterprise Ltd, Hong Kong by M/s NPT, M/s SPPL and M/s SIPPL should have been the assessable/transaction value of the goods. The assessing officer was bound to accept the price payable for the goods as transaction value. No evidence has been brought on record to reject the transaction value. On the contrary M/s NPT, SPPL and SIPPL have given ample evidence as discussed above that all over the world the price was the same of stocklot of coated/uncoated papers. In support of this submission the Ld Advocate placed reliance on the following judgments:-

6. The difference in the value is again worked out on the strength of these very documents. Once these documents evidence on the question of the value of the consignments since the Collector of Customs had reached the conclusion that there was an incorrect declaration made by the respondents in regard to the value of the consignments on the basis of these documents".

22 | P a g e C/10559-10563,10830/2020 6.2 In the both above judgments the Hon‟ble Apex Court has categorically laid down that if the documents procured from abroad which purportedly show higher value than the declared value, no reliance can be placed on the same if the said documents are neither authenticated nor attested even if they bear a serial number and stamp. No reliance can be placed on the same if they are only copies and bear no signature of the exporter or the forwarding agent or the Customs Officer of the exporting country. We hold that since the procured documents do not contain the details as mandated by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in above two judgments the same cannot be relied upon against the three importers. Similarly corresponding five export declarations are also not admissible in the same manner. Further we find that in respect of two Bills of Entry at serial number 2 and 3 of the above chart only one export declaration dated 9.5.2014 has been relied upon without bringing on record corresponding invoices. No explanation has been given by the DRI as to if the purported export declaration of higher value was available why corresponding invoices were not provided by the Belgium Customs as export declaration is always prepared on the basis of an invoice. Further, the duty of Rs. 74,640 has been confirmed on the ground that there was a difference in weight to the extent of 8.552 MT in respect of two Bills of Entry both dated 12.9.2014 as the procured invoices showed the actual quantity 447.492 MT where the actual invoices showed the total quantity imported as 438.940 MT. Since we have already held hereinabove that the procured invoices are not admissible in evidence hence the charge of misdeclaration in quantity of import of goods in respect of two Bills of Entry can also be not sustained.

6.4 That the authenticity, genuineness and admissibility of procured documents can be examined from another angle. Under Section 2(41) of Customs Act the word "value" is defined in relation to any goods to mean the value determined in accordance with provisions of Section 14(1). The value to be declared in bill of entry is the value referred to above and not merely the invoice price. On the plain reading of Section 14(1) and Section 14(1A), it envisages that the value of any goods chargeable to ad valorem duty has to be deemed price as referred to in Section 14(1). Therefore determination of such price has to be in accordance with the relevant rules and subject to the provisions of Section 14(1). Therefore, the transaction value under Rule 3(1) of CVR, 2007 must be the price paid or payable on such goods at the time and place of importation in the course of international trade, when the seller and buyer have no interest in the business of each other and price is sole consideration for the sale. Therefore, what has to be seen by the department is the value or cost of the imported goods at the time of importation that is at the time when the goods reach customs barrier. Therefore, the invoice price is not sacrosanct. However, before rejecting the invoice price the department has to give cogent reason for such rejection. This is because the invoice price forms the basis of transaction value. Therefore, before rejecting the transaction value as incorrect or unacceptable department has to find whether there are any imports of 24 | P a g e C/10559-10563,10830/2020 identical or similar goods at higher price around the same time. Unless the evidence is gathered in that regard, question of rejecting the invoice price or transaction value cannot arise in the absence of such evidence and invoice price has to be accepted as the transaction value. In the present case, it is noted that M/s NPT had imported 43 consignments of stocklot of coated/uncoated paper rolls in mix size and gsm from M/s Korco AB, Sweden out of which in sixteen cases they have brought on record export declarations pertaining to the period 26.12.2014 to 22.6.2017. These export declarations show price lesser than invoice price due to the reasons that invoice price is inclusive of insurance and freight whereas the export declaration only reflects the cost of goods. Similarly in respect of M/s SPPL, they had imported thirteen consignments from M/s Korco AB, Sweden during period 29.8.2014 to 11.5.2017. M/s SPPL has also brought on record two export declarations the details of which have been given in submissions portion. We have gone through these export declarations which pertain to the disputed consignments themselves and pertain to the invoices which were filed before Indian Customs and value declared in the same range from US$ 400 PMT to US$ 455 PMT. Similarly we have also gone through the invoices and export declarations (which have been enclosed in some cases) of identical/similar goods namely stocklot of coated/uncoated paper rolls in mix size and gsm imported by M/s NPT from same company i.e. M/s Korco AB Russia, imports from other suppliers located in Europe to M/s NPT, supplies from European suppliers to other parties in India, imports from USA and Canada by M/s NPT. In all these supplies, the price of identical/similar goods range from US$ 400 PMT to US$ 435 PMT. This evidence was placed before the Principal Commissioner but he has not rebutted or controverted the same. In the face of this unimpeachable evidence the procured documents completely loose its evidentiary value. In support of our finding that even in cases where the department procures evidence of higher value at the place of export, the value cannot be enhanced unless there is an evidence of import of identical or similar goods at a higher value, we rely upon on law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Customs Calcutta vs. South India Television P Ltd reported in 2007(214) ELT 3(SC) where in para 6 , para 7 and para 8 it has been laid down as under :-

6.7 The Principal Commissioner has placed heavy reliance on last statement of Shri Prakash Chand Garg Director of M/s NPT which was recorded on 8.8.2018. We have noted above that the three statements from Shri Garg were recorded which are dated 23.1.2015, 24.4.2018 and 8.8.2018. According to the Principal Commissioner it was his third statement dated 8.8.2018 wherein he accepted undervaluation on the part of M/s NPT. We have gone through the contents of said statement dated 8.8.2018. Nowhere in the said statement there is any acceptance of undervaluation. While recording the statement the investigating officer had confronted Shri Garg with four invoices of higher value and five export declarations and was asked to offer his comments regarding huge discrepancy in the per unit price. After going through the photocopies of said documents he stated that it was true that in the procured invoices the value of goods PMT was mentioned as US$ 605, 625, 630 and 646 but he stated that he did not exactly remember how that price was shown in the supplier invoice. He further stated that he would verify from his end and come back to DRI with proper explanation in ten days time. In answer to next question which was put to him he stated that as per invoices shown to him the goods were shipped to them at the higher rate of US$ 605 PMT to US$ 646 PMT but they showed to the Indian Customs US$ 400 to US$ 550 PMT as true and correct. We note that whatever comments were given by Shri Garg in answer to various queries put by the investigating officer were in response to the four invoices of higher value shown to him. Therefore, his answer should be seen in that context only. If M/s NPT would have indulged in undervaluation it was highly obligatory upon the investigating officers to put a pertinent query to Shri Garg as to how the extra amount was remitted to the supplier. Further this investigation centred around only four invoices when the fact remains that when his statement was recorded M/s NPT had already imported 43 consignments from M/s Korco AB, Sweden. Further we find that Shri Garg retracted from his statement by filing an affidavit before the DRI. Therefore the statement of Shri Garg cannot be seen in isolation but in the context of what was shown to him. If M/s NPT would have indulged in undervaluation Shri Garg would not have sought ten day time to verify the facts. It means his statement dated 8.8.2018 was not conclusive. The DRI should have called him again after ten days for further clarification if any but he was 29 | P a g e C/10559-10563,10830/2020 never summoned after 8.8.2018. It is well settled law that the admission is extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive; it is open to the person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. This proposition of law has been well laid down by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangoda Rubber Produce Co Ltd vs. State of Kerala and others reported at (1972) 4 SCC 683. Further, we observe that the statement of Sh. Prakash Chand Garg dated 8.8.2018 was with regard to the procured documents. Once we have held that the said documents are not admissible in evidence any statement recorded on said procured documents will have no evidential value.