2014 (2) TMI 1202 - AT - Customs

Valuation - Enhancement in value - Held that - In the case of Ganesh Trading Co., reported in 2014 (1) TMI 64 - CESTAT NEW DELHI this Tribunal has held that although Bill of Entry has been assessed and value has been enhanced and goods have been cleared on enhanced value without any protest, the importers cannot be precluded from challenging assessed bill of entry on the sole ground that goods cleared at enhanced value. Therefore, case relied upon by learned AR is not applicable to the facts of this case. In this case learned Commissioner (Appeals) himself has asked the basis of enhancement of value of the impugned goods which had been replied by the concerned Astt. Commissioner and gave reasons for enhancement. In these circumstances, we hold that enhancement has been done without any basis. Therefore, transaction value has been accepted. Impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the enhancement of valuation by the Adjudicating Authority.
- Challenge to the assessed value of imported sports goods.
- Interpretation of rules regarding challenging assessed value after payment without protest.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against the order confirming the enhancement of valuation by the Adjudicating Authority. The case involved the import of badminton sets with declared value @ U.S.$ 0.48 per set, which was assessed by the Authority at U.S.$ 1 per set. The appellant paid duty on the enhanced value and then approached the Commissioner (Appeals) seeking clarification on the basis of the enhancement.

2. The appellant contended that the enhancement of value was unjustified, pointing to a letter from the Asst. Commissioner stating that no speaking orders were passed at the time of clearance and the basis for enhancement could not be ascertained from the records. The appellant argued that the impugned order should be set aside due to the lack of a valid basis for the enhancement.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant highlighted that the appellant did not pay duty "Under Protest," emphasizing that the appellant had accepted the assessed value and paid duty without protest. However, the Tribunal referred to a previous case, Ganesh Trading Co., where it was held that importers can challenge assessed bill of entry even if goods were cleared at an enhanced value without protest, thereby rejecting the argument based on the case of Vikas Spinners.

4. The Tribunal noted that in the present case, the Commissioner (Appeals) had specifically inquired about the basis of the enhancement of value, and the Asst. Commissioner's response indicated that the enhancement was done without a clear basis. The Tribunal concluded that the transaction value should have been accepted, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

5. In summary, the Tribunal found that the enhancement of value lacked a valid basis, and the appellant was entitled to challenge the assessed value despite clearing the goods at an enhanced value without protest. The Tribunal's decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the lack of a proper justification for the enhancement of value.