2015 (11) TMI 203 - AT - Customs

Valuation of goods - Enhance of value - No SCN issued - Violation of principle of natural justice - Held that - Revaluation was done based upon the NIDB data and was in no way arbitrary or unreasonable. - Duty was paid at the enhanced value without protest. This shows that the appellant s contention that they did not accept the revised transaction value is obviously untenable. By consenting to enhancement of value and thereby voluntarily forgoing the requirement for a show cause notice, the appellant made it unnecessary for Revenue to establish the valuation any further as the accepted value in effect becomes it declared transaction value requiring no further investigation or justification. In such a situation the judgement in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. (2000 (11) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) is of no help to the appellant. To allow the appellant to contest the accepted value is to put Revenue in an impossible situation when the goods are no longer available for inspection and Revenue rightly did not proceed further collect and compile all the evidences/basis into a show cause notice, more so because had Revenue insisted upon issuing a show cause notice, in spite of the appellant having consented to the enhanced value and requested for no show cause notice it could/would have invited allegation of harassment and delay in clearance of goods. When the show cause notice is foregone and the valuation is consented, the violation of principles of natural Justice cannot be alleged. - No merit in appeal - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to re-determination of assessable value under Rule 9 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 based on rejected declared value of goods.

Analysis:

1. Consent to Revised Value:
The appellant contested the rejection of the declared value of goods and argued for acceptance of the transaction value. However, the lower authorities confirmed that the appellant had consented to the revised value in writing and paid the duty without protest. This voluntary acceptance by the appellant waived the need for a show cause notice and shifted the burden of proof to establish valuation back to the Revenue. The judgment cited in Eicher Tractors Ltd. case did not support the appellant's position. The tribunal emphasized that contesting the accepted value after consenting to it would create an impossible situation for the Revenue, especially when the goods were no longer available for inspection.

2. Estoppel and Legal Implications:
The tribunal referred to previous judgments in similar cases, such as Vikas Spinners and Guardian Plasticote Ltd., where it was held that once the enhanced value was settled and duty paid without protest, the importer was estopped from challenging it later. The tribunal highlighted that accepting the revised value without objection discharged the burden of the department to prove the declared value was incorrect. The principle of estoppel applied in this case, preventing the appellant from denying the correctness of the loaded value after voluntarily accepting and paying duty based on it.

3. Application of Precedents:
The tribunal relied on the judgments in Vikas Spinners and Guardian Plasticote Ltd. cases to reinforce the principle that once the enhanced value is accepted and duty paid without protest, the importer cannot contest it later. These precedents supported the Revenue's position and emphasized the legal consequences of voluntarily accepting the revised value of goods.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in challenging the re-determination of the assessable value based on the rejected declared value of the goods. The analysis highlighted the legal implications of voluntarily accepting the revised value and paying duty without protest, which prevented the appellant from contesting the valuation at a later stage. The application of estoppel and reliance on previous judgments further strengthened the decision to uphold the re-determined assessable value.