2011 (3) TMI 237 - AT - Customs

Valuation - The Bill of Entry was assessed by the Appraising Group by loading the value of the goods to the extent of 200% without giving any notice to the importer or their CHA and without conveying any reason for such loading of value - The appellate authority further noted that the department had also not adduced any documentary evidence justifying enhancement of the value of the goods - The ld.JDR submits that the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not a speaking order and further that the correct Valuation Rule was not invoked in this case - The rule further provides that if the assessing authority seeks to reject the declared value and to proceed to determine the correct value, it should first intimate to the importer in writing the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the declared value, at the request of the importer - Appeal is allowed by way of remand

Issues:
1. Stay application filed by the Revenue seeking stay of operation of the impugned order.
2. Assessment of Bill of Entry by the Appraising Group without notice to the importer or CHA.
3. Appeal to the Commissioner(Appeals) based on denial of natural justice to the assessee.
4. Invocation of correct Valuation Rule by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent appeal by the Revenue.
5. Compliance with Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.
6. Lack of a speaking order by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the need for a remand.

Issue 1:
The Revenue filed a stay application seeking to stay the operation of the impugned order where the ld. Commissioner(Appeals) accepted the declared value of the goods. Despite no representation from the respondent, the Appellate Tribunal found good reason for a final disposal of the appeal without prejudice to the respondent, leading to the dismissal of the stay application.

Issue 2:
The respondent filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of goods, which was assessed by the Appraising Group by loading the value without notice to the importer or CHA. The importer protested and cleared the goods under protest, leading to an appeal to the Commissioner(Appeals) based on denial of natural justice by the lower authority.

Issue 3:
The ld.JDR argued that the order by the Commissioner (Appeals) was not a speaking order and the correct Valuation Rule was not invoked. The Tribunal noted that Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 should have been applied, requiring the assessing authority to call for information from the importer if doubting the declared value. The Tribunal found fault with the original authority for not providing an opportunity to the assessee to support the declared value, leading to a remand for a fresh speaking order.

Issue 4:
The Tribunal acknowledged the denial of natural justice by the original authority and the lack of a speaking order by the Commissioner (Appeals). The matter was remanded back to the original authority for a fresh order on the valuation dispute, emphasizing the need to comply with Rule 12 and provide the assessee with an opportunity to adduce evidence and be personally heard.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the stay application and allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the original authority to pass a fresh speaking order on the valuation dispute in compliance with Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, ensuring the assessee's right to present evidence and be heard.

← Previous Next →