NDLI: Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Union of India and Others

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	12 Interpretation of rr.3 Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules 2007
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007: rr.3, 12 – Appellants had been regularly importing aluminium waste as a raw material for manufacturing alluminium alloy – Case of appellants was that respondentsauthorities discarded the declared transactional value and recomputed the consignment value – Held: As per s.14(1) of the Customs Act, value of the imported goods shall be the transactional value of such goods, which means the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India where the buyers and sellers are not related and the price fixed is the sole consideration for sale – r.3(1) states that value of the imported goods shall be the transaction value adjusted in accordance with the provisions of r.10 of the 2007 Rules – Sub-rule (2) to r.3 states that value of the imported goods under sub-rule (1) shall be accepted i.e. accepted by the customs authorities – Where the proper officer is not satisfied and has reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the value so declared, it is deemed that the transactional value of such imported goods cannot be determined under the provision of subrule (1) of r.3 of the 2007 Rules – As per sub Rule (2) of r.12, the proper officer when required must intimate to the importer in writing the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared – The said mandate of sub-Rule (2) of r.12 cannot be ignored or waived – In the instant case, the findings in the order-in-original was that the appellants had declared value of the aluminium scrap as Rs.81.31 per kg, albeit the contemporaneous import data in the form of different bills of entry had indicated aluminium scrap values between Rs. 83.26 to Rs. 120.897 per kg – The order-in-original also recorded that the imported goods being aluminium scrap was not a homogeneous commodity and therefore, cannot be evaluated on the basis of the samples or lab testing and that it was very difficult to find any identical/similar goods imported in India having same chemical and physical composition – Therefore, the order-in-original was flawed and contrary to law for it did not give cogent reason in terms of s.14(1) and r.12 for rejection of the transaction value as declared in the bill of entry – Customs Act, 1962 – s.14 – Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 – rr.3 to 12. Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007: r.12 – Rejection of declared value – Essential requirement – Reasonable doubt of proper officer as to transactional value – The proper officer should have reasonable doubt as to the transactional value on account of truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to the imported goods – Proper officer must ask the importer of such goods, further information which may include documents or evidence – On receiving such information or in the absence of response from the importer, the proper officer has to apply his mind and decide whether or not reasonable doubt as to the truth or accuracy of the value so declared persists – When the proper officer does not have reasonable doubt, the goods are cleared on the declared value – When the doubt persists, sub-rule (1) to r.3 is not applicable and transaction value is determined in terms of rr.4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules – The importer has to be given opportunity of hearing before the proper officer finally decides the transactional value in terms of rr.4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 – r.12 – Interpretation of – Held: The choice of words deployed in r.12 of the 2007 Rules are significant and of much consequence – The Legislature did not use the expression “reason to believe” or “satisfaction” or such other positive terms as a pre-condition on the part of the proper officer – The expression “reason to believe” which would have required the proper officer to refer to facts and figures to show existence of positive belief on the undervaluation or lower declaration of the transaction value – The expression “reason to doubt” as a sequitur would require a different threshold and examination – It cannot be equated with the requirements of positive reasons to believe, for the word ‘doubt’ refers to un-certainty and irresolution reflecting suspicion and apprehension Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 – r.18 – Case of appellants that respondentsauthorities discarded the declared transactional value and recomputed the consignment value by compelling the appellant to give a letter of consent to assessment/valuation by custom authorities – Contention of the respondents was predicated on letter of appellants dated 6th March, 2017 that the appellants did not seek provisional assessment of the bill of entry and had accepted and paid duty on the valuation done by the customs authorities – The contention is rejected since this letter exposited the predicament faced by the appellants as it stated that the appellants were in urgent requirement and wanted clearance of the goods – Appellants had earlier also written several letters requesting for clearance of the imported consignment of aluminium scrap on the declared transaction value pointing out therein that on account of delay in the clearance of the imported consignments, the appellants and its sister concern had been compelled to pay excess duty of over Rs.25 crores – Therefore, respondent authorities had compelled and forced the appellant to furnish letter dated 6th March, 2017 thereby waiving of its right to provisional assessment and accepting valuation in terms of rr.4 to 10. Customs Act, 1962: Valuation Alerts – The Valuation Alerts are issued by the Director General of Valuation based on the monitoring of valuation trends of sensitive commodities with a view to take corrective measures – They provide guidance to the field formation in valuation matters – They help ensure uniform practice, smooth functioning and prevent evasion and short payment of duty – However, they should not be construed as interfering with the discretion of the assessment authority who is required to pass an Assessment Order in the given factual matrix – Declared valuation can be rejected based upon the evidence which qualifies and meets the criteria of ‘certain reasons’ – Besides, the opinion formed must be reasonable – Reference to foreign journals for the price quoted in exchanges etc., to find out the correct international price of concerned goods would be relevant but reliance can be placed on such material only when the adjudicating authority had conducted enquiries and ascertained details with reference to the goods imported which are identical or similar and ‘certain reasons’ exists and justifies detailed investigation – These reasons are to be recorded and if requested disclosed/ communicated to the importer – Valuation alerts could be relied upon for default valuation computation under the Rules.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 683
Petitioner	Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. And
Respondent	Union Of India And Others
SCR	[2019] 8 S.C.R. 639
Judgement Date	2019-05-15
Case Number	5011

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Union of India and Others

Please Log-in to view this content

M/s. Gira Enterprises and Anr. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad

Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/s Ferodo India Pvt. Ltd.

Wipro Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs & Ors.

M/s Matsushita Television & Audio (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Rabindra Chandra Paul Vs. Commr. of Customs (preventive) Shillong

Commissioner of Customs, Vishakhapatnam Vs. M/s Aggarwal Industries Ltd.

Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Vs. M/s Prodelin India (p) Ltd.

Collector of Customs Vs. M/s. Television and Components Ltd. and Ors.

M/s. Wep Peripherals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Union of India and Others

Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Union of India and Others

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

M/s. Gira Enterprises and Anr. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad

Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/s Ferodo India Pvt. Ltd.

Wipro Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs & Ors.

M/s Matsushita Television & Audio (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Rabindra Chandra Paul Vs. Commr. of Customs (preventive) Shillong

Commissioner of Customs, Vishakhapatnam Vs. M/s Aggarwal Industries Ltd.

Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Vs. M/s Prodelin India (p) Ltd.

Collector of Customs Vs. M/s. Television and Components Ltd. and Ors.

M/s. Wep Peripherals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Union of India and Others