Page 245 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

2020 ] AUTO CREATERS v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI 683

fine. He has further imposed penalty on the appellants. Aggrieved by such or-
ders, the appellants are before this Tribunal.
3. Heard the Learned Counsel Shri B. Venugopal. He has submitted
that the Load Port Documents which Revenue has relied were provided to the
appellants but the authenticity of such documents was questioned by them as the
documents were neither endorsed nor signed by any of the shippers or load port
authorities of the country of export. He has submitted that the said documents
had no evidentiary value. He further submitted that on the basis of such docu-
ment, which do not have any evidentiary value the data was tabulated. On the
basis of such data undervaluation was alleged. He further submitted that the
goods were not branded and the name of the manufacturer was mentioned on
the cartons and the findings of the Commissioner that the goods were found to
be branded is not based on the fact. He has submitted that in the whole discus-
sion, the Commissioner has not stated as to which brands the goods were belong-
ing to but made a bald statement that the goods were found to be branded. Fur-
ther, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant has taken us through the ruling by the
Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Century Metal Recy-
cling Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported as 2019 (367) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). He has sub-
mitted that it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that for rejection of de-
clared value under Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, elaborate proce-
dure has been specified and such procedure was not followed for rejection of
transaction value. He further submitted that the Revenue did not have any evi-
dence that the appellants have made payment to the overseas exporters in addi-
tion to what was stated in the invoices and in the absence of any additional con-
sideration flowing from the importer to the exporter overseas, under the provi-
sions of Customs Act, 1962, transaction value has to be accepted. He has also re-
lied on the ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central
Excise, Noida v. Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2019 (365)
E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). He has relied on para 10 of the said ruling which is reproduced as
follows :-
“10. The law, thus, is clear. As per Sections 14(1) and 14(1A), the
value of any goods chargeable to ad valorem duty is deemed to be the price
as referred to in that provision. Section 14(1) is a deeming provision as it
talks of ‘deemed value’ of such goods. Therefore, normally, the Assessing
Officer is supposed to act on the basis of price which is actually paid and
treat the same as assessable value/transaction value of the goods. This, or-
dinarily, is the course of action which needs to be followed by the Assessing
Officer. This principle of arriving at transaction value to be the assessable
value applies. That is also the effect of Rule 3(1) and Rule 4(1) of the Cus-
toms Valuation Rules, namely, the adjudicating authority is bound to ac-
cept price actually paid or payable for goods as the transaction value. Ex-
ceptions are, however, carved out and enumerated in Rule 4(2). As per that
provision, the transaction value mentioned in the Bills of Entry can be dis-
carded in case it is found that there are any imports of identical goods or
similar goods at a higher price at around the same time or if the buyers and
sellers are related to each other. In order to invoke such a provision it is in-
cumbent upon the Assessing Officer to give reasons as to why the transac-
tion value declared in the Bills of Entry was being rejected; to establish that
the price is not the sole consideration; and to give the reasons supported by

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  245