9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 223 - AT - CustomsValuation of goods - Enhancement in value of goods - Held that - in spite of clear directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 07.08.2008 the Order-in-Original dated 28.07.2009 was issued by disregarding those directions of the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) is right in observing that the said Order-in-Original dated 28.07.2009 is not sustainable as no details have been given regarding NIDB data, which has been referred to in the Order-in-Original (dated 28.07.2009). Further, the Order-in-Original mentioned that I find merit in the contentions of the Department that the value of the goods appeared to be low . There is no basis as how the adjudicating authority found merit in the contentions of the Department and in any case he (i.e., the adjudicating authority) only stated that the value appeared very low . We may mention here that this case has travelled upto Commissioner (Appeals) twice and even the second time, the adjudicating authority failed the requirement of passing a speaking order complying with the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) contained in Order-in-Appeal dated 07.08.2008. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned Order-in-Appeal (which contained detailed analysis as to why the Order-in- Original dated 28.07.2009 is not sustainable) suffers from no such infirmity as to warrant our intervention - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Validity of the enhancement of declared value by the primary adjudicating authority. 2. Compliance with the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) by the primary adjudicating authority. 3. Legal sustainability of the consent of the importer for the enhancement of declared value. 4. Application of Valuation Rules and NIDB data in enhancing the declared value. 5. Justifiability of the Order-in-Original dated 28.07.2009. Issue 1 - Validity of the enhancement of declared value: The appeal was filed by Revenue against an Order-in-Appeal that set aside an Order-in-Original enhancing the declared value of goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the enhancement was arbitrary and lacked valid legal grounds. The primary adjudicating authority did not comply with the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) issued earlier, leading to questions regarding the legality of the enhancement. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of a speaking order in cases where declared value is enhanced without the consent of the appellant. Issue 2 - Compliance with directions of the Commissioner (Appeals): The primary adjudicating authority failed to comply with the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) as per an earlier Order-in-Appeal. Despite clear instructions to issue speaking orders within a specified timeframe, the Order-in-Original was issued disregarding these directions. This lack of compliance raised concerns about the validity and sustainability of the subsequent orders. Issue 3 - Legal sustainability of importer's consent for enhancement: The Tribunal highlighted the importance of legally permissible methods and adherence to Valuation Rules when obtaining the importer's consent for enhancing the declared value. Consent obtained under arbitrary circumstances or pressure is deemed legally unsustainable. The case emphasized the need for enhancements to be in accordance with relevant provisions to ensure the legality of importer consent. Issue 4 - Application of Valuation Rules and NIDB data: The Order-in-Original mentioned the use of Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules and NIDB data to justify the enhancement of declared value. However, the lack of specific details regarding the NIDB data and the absence of clear reasons for rejecting the transaction value raised doubts about the validity of the enhancement. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of providing detailed justifications based on Valuation Rules for any value enhancements. Issue 5 - Justifiability of Order-in-Original dated 28.07.2009: The Commissioner (Appeals) found the Order-in-Original to be unsustainable due to the lack of details regarding NIDB data and arbitrary enhancement of declared value without valid legal grounds. The adjudicating authority's failure to pass a speaking order as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals) further weakened the justifiability of the Order-in-Original. The Tribunal upheld the decision to set aside the Order-in-Original based on these deficiencies, rejecting the appeal filed by Revenue.
|
