2015 (10) TMI 271 - AT - Customs

Enhancement of value as per DOV alert Consent given by CHA Appellant imported aluminium scrap and filed four Bills of Entry AO assessed Bills of Entries by enhancing value on basis of DOV alert and appellant agreed for same and paid duty at enhanced value without any protest/objection Subsequently, appellant filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals), who taking note of fact that enhancement of value was done with consent of appellant rejected its appeals Held that - It has been clearly recorded by Commissioner (Appeals) that appellant agreed to loading and had categorically stated on body of invoice that they have no objection if value is loaded as per DOV alert Appellant s argument that consent by CHA cannot be taken to be its consent is not maintainable as CHA is agent of appellant and therefore its action was binding on appellant Tribunal in case of Vikas Spinners Vs. CC, Lucknow 2000 (11) TMI 196 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI held that having once accepted loaded value of goods and paid duty accordingly thereon without any protest or objection they are legally estopped from taking somersault and to deny correctness of same, they settled their duty liability once for all and paid duty amount on loaded value of goods In light of analysis, no merit in appeals and therefore same are dismissed Decided against Assesse.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal dated 10.12.2009 rejecting appellant's appeals.
- Appellant imported aluminium scrap ISRI TENSE and filed four Bills of Entry.
- Assessing Officer enhanced value based on DOV alert, appellant paid duty without protest.
- Commissioner (Appeals) rejected appeals, citing appellant's consent to enhanced value.
- Appellant contended lack of evidence, Customs Valuation Rules application, no acceptance of enhanced value, right to appeal, and cited relevant case laws.
- Departmental Representative argued against appellant's right to contest after consenting.
- Tribunal analyzed consent by CHA, appellant's knowledge, consent, and impact on Revenue's valuation process.
- Tribunal referred to case laws, including Dunlop India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and CC, New Delhi Vs. D.M. International.
- CESTAT's judgment in Vikas Spinners case highlighted the legal implications of accepting loaded value without protest.
- Tribunal dismissed the appeals based on analysis and legal precedents.

The judgment revolves around an appeal against the rejection of appellant's appeals concerning the import of aluminium scrap ISRI TENSE and the assessment of Customs Duty. The Assessing Officer enhanced the value based on a DOV alert, which the appellant agreed to without protest. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals, emphasizing the appellant's consent to the enhanced value. The appellant raised various contentions, including lack of evidence, application of Customs Valuation Rules, and cited relevant case laws like Dunlop India Ltd. Vs. Union of India. The Departmental Representative argued against the appellant's right to contest post-consent. The Tribunal analyzed the consent by the CHA, appellant's knowledge, and impact on Revenue's valuation process. Referring to legal precedents and CESTAT's judgment in Vikas Spinners case, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, citing the legal implications of accepting loaded value without protest. The judgment underscores the significance of consent in valuation disputes and its legal consequences on subsequent challenges.