2018 (8) TMI 1929 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - import of consignments of Aluminium Scrap of different grades under DEEC Scheme - allegation that the declared unit price is too low - rejection of declared value - enhancement of value without giving any reasons - non-speaking order - principles of natural justice. HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact on record that the assessing authority had enhanced the declared value, without considering the facts such as, huge quantity of same goods imported by the respondent under contract and no contemporaneous import of the higher values were brought on record. Further, while enhancing the value, no speaking order was passed by the authorities. Therefore, direction for reassessing the Bills of Entry by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is legally sustainable under such circumstances - Setting aside the assessment orders passed on the Bills of Entry is proper and justified. Impugned order upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the impugned order dated 30-9-2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Raigad.
- Assessment of Bills of Entry for clearance of imported consignments of "Aluminium Scrap" under DEEC Scheme.
- Rejection of declared value and enhancement of value by the department.
- Lack of a speaking order by the proper officer in enhancing the declared value.
- Legality and justification of setting aside the assessment orders.
- Compliance with Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 in re-determining the transaction value.
- Admissibility of the appeal filed by Revenue.

Analysis:
1. The respondent imported "Aluminium Scrap" under the DEEC Scheme, claiming duty exemption under Notification No. 93/2004. The department rejected the declared value due to a perceived discrepancy in the unit price and enhanced the value based on available data. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the assessment, considering the negotiated contract price as the correct value due to the large quantity and same supplier involved.

2. Revenue contended that the absence of a speaking order necessitated remanding the matter to the assessing officer instead of setting aside the assessment. They argued that the respondent's representative was shown contemporaneous import data and consented to the value enhancement, making the setting aside of assessment orders legally unsustainable.

3. The respondent's advocate supported the impugned order, citing the absence of a speaking order by the proper officer as per Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. Referring to previous Tribunal decisions, it was argued that setting aside assessment orders was justified when no speaking orders were passed for enhancing declared values.

4. After hearing both sides and reviewing the records, it was established that the assessing authority had enhanced the value without considering factors like the substantial quantity imported under contract and the lack of contemporaneous import data supporting higher values. The absence of a speaking order during value enhancement further supported the decision to reassess the Bills of Entry, making the setting aside of assessment orders legally sustainable.

5. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed Revenue's appeal. This decision was based on the failure to comply with Section 17(5) of the Customs Act in re-determining transaction values, as highlighted in previous cases where stay applications and appeals by Revenue were also dismissed for similar reasons.