Page 45 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

2020 ] COURT-ROOM HIGHLIGHTS A121

were not cleared by the proper officer of the Customs on that day under Section
47 of Customs Act, 1962. High Court relied on Supreme Court decision in the
case of Param Industries. It was further held that where the Bill of Entry though
presented on or before 16-2-2019 but goods not entered into India by the said
date or the goods arrived into India on or before 16-2-2019 but Bill of Entry not
presented by the said date, the amended enhanced rate of duty would be appli-
cable under the said notification.
REPRESENTED BY : Mr. K.M. Natraj, ASG, Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR
and Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Advocate, for the
Petitioner.

Valuation (Customs) — Enhancement of transaction value
not sustainable without evidence and sequential fol-
lowing of Customs Valuation Rules
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr.
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta and Hon’ble
Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi on 17-6-2020 after condoning the delay dismissed the
Civil Appeal Diary No. 7986 of 2020 filed by Commissioner of Customs (Import)
against the CESTAT Final Order No. A/86333/2019-WZB, dated 2-8-2019 as re-
ported in 2019 (370) E.L.T. 1569 (Tri - Mumbai) (Amarjeet Enterprises v. Commis-
sioner). While dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court passed the following
order :
“1. Delay condoned.
2. We are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in the
Civil Appeal. The Civil Appeal is dismissed.
3. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.”
The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that while reject-
ing transaction value and enhancing it, Customs Valuation (Determination of
Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 have not been followed systematically and
correctly inasmuch as Rules 4, 5, 6 and 7 and 7A (as per Rule 6A) ibid, were not
sequentially followed. Moreover, reliance placed on export price of product for
determining value of imported product and blanket reliance on proforma invoice
was against established principles of valuation. As regards market enquiry, the
Tribunal observed that assessee was not made part of market enquiry nor given a
copy of report. The department also did not consider values of contemporaneous
imports of identical/similar goods.
REPRESENTED BY : Mr. K.M. Natraj, ASG, Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR,
Mr. Shekhar Vyas and Mr. Adit Khorana, Advocates,
for the Petitioner.

_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  45