2005 (12) TMI 373 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of imported PVC flooring at an enhanced value.
2. Relevance of an alert notice from Directorate of Valuation.
3. Appellant's right to challenge valuation despite acceptance at clearance.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Assessment of imported PVC flooring at an enhanced value
The appellant contested the assessment of PVC flooring imported from the U.K., which was valued at Rs. Two lakhs but was assessed at Rs. 6.4 lakhs. The impugned order stated that the appellant had accepted the assessment at the time of clearance, implying acceptance of the enhanced value. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this position, emphasizing that the appellant's acceptance at clearance did not preclude challenging the valuation. The Tribunal noted that filing an appeal indicated the appellant's dissatisfaction with the assessment. It was highlighted that clearing a consignment to avoid additional costs like demurrage should not prevent the appellant from disputing an incorrect valuation.

Issue 2: Relevance of an alert notice from Directorate of Valuation
The Tribunal observed that the basis for enhancing the value of the consignment was an alert notice from the Directorate of Valuation related to undervalued imports of PVC flooring from Taiwan, Korea, and Thailand, not the U.K. The Tribunal determined that the alert notice was not applicable to the appellant's import from the U.K. and, therefore, the enhancement of value was not justified. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order needed to be set aside, and the appeal allowed in favor of the appellant.

Issue 3: Appellant's right to challenge valuation despite acceptance at clearance
The Tribunal reiterated that the appellant's acceptance of the assessed value at clearance did not waive the right to challenge the valuation later. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's decision to appeal indicated a disagreement with the assessment, and the clearance of the consignment to avoid additional costs should not be used against the appellant in asserting their right to challenge an incorrect valuation. As the enhancement of value was deemed unjustified, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the enhanced assessment of the imported PVC flooring from the U.K. based on an unjustified alert notice and affirming the appellant's right to challenge the valuation despite acceptance at clearance.