2014 (2) TMI 217 - AT - Customs

Clearance of Ferrite magnet & Ferrite magnet rings - Valuation of goods - Declaration of the value based upon the invoices raised by the supplier - Enhancement as per instructions of C.B.E. & C. vide Circular No. 91/2003-Cus., dated 14-10-2003 - Revenue has contended that inasmuch as the appellants cleared the goods on enhanced value, they were precluded from contesting the same - Held that - The said circular itself makes it clear that proper officer is required to intimate in writing the grounds for enhancing the value and a reasonable opportunity is required to be given to the importer before the final decision is taken. It is only in those cases where both the sides agree to resort to enhancement of value. That no orders are required to be passed. Merely because the importer has cleared the goods at enhanced value to save the demurrage charges or otherwise, by itself, does not mean that the importer is consenting to enhance the value. It is right of the importer to contest the enhancement and fact of clearance of goods, cannot preclude the importer from exercising the right of appeal - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order based on declared value, Validity of circular regarding enhancement of value, Right of importer to contest value enhancement, Remand of matter to original adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
The case involves a challenge by the Revenue against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the assessment of imported goods based on declared value. The respondents had filed Bills of Entry for clearance of Ferrite magnet & Ferrite magnet rings, but the assessing authority disagreed with the declared value and enhanced it. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the assessment order as the assessing authority did not provide reasons for rejecting the declared price, directing a speaking order within 15 days.

The Revenue challenged the Commissioner's order citing Circular No. 91/2003-Cus., which allows for value enhancement with importer consent without the need for speaking orders. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's contention, emphasizing that the circular mandates providing written grounds for value enhancement and a reasonable opportunity for the importer to be heard. Merely clearing goods at an enhanced value does not imply consent to the enhancement, and the importer retains the right to contest the valuation and appeal the decision.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority for determining the assessable value of the imported goods in accordance with natural justice principles. It was clarified that the importer's act of clearing goods at an enhanced value does not waive their right to challenge the valuation. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and directed the original adjudicating authority to proceed as per the remand order.

In conclusion, the stay petition and appeal were disposed of by the Tribunal, affirming the Commissioner's decision and emphasizing the importer's right to contest value enhancement despite clearing goods at an enhanced value. The case highlights the importance of providing reasons for value enhancement and ensuring the importer's opportunity to be heard before a final decision is made.