2023 (9) TMI 1402 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - various kinds of scrap of aluminium like zorba, tally and twitch - enhancement of assessable value on the basis of contemporaneous imports data - rejection of appeals primarily for the reason that the appellant had accepted the re-determined enhanced value of the imported aluminium scrap in writing and thereafter cleared the imported goods after paying duty on the enhanced value - HELD THAT - It would be seen that section 14 of the Customs Act provides that the transaction value of goods shall be the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India where the buyer and the seller of the goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the sale, subject to such other conditions as may be specified in the rules made in this behalf - It would be seen that though in a case where re-assessment has to be done under sub-section (4) of section 17 of the Customs Act, the proper officer is required to pass a speaking order on the re-assessment, but if the importer or exporter confirms his acceptance of the re-assessment, a speaking order is not required to be passed. It is seen from a perusal of section 17(4) of the Customs Act that the proper officer can re-assess the duty leviable, if it is found on verification, examination or testing of the goods or otherwise that the self-assessment was not done correctly. Subsection (5) of section 17 provides that where any re-assessment done under sub-section (4) is contrary to the self-assessment done by the importer, the proper officer shall pass a speaking order on the re-assessment, except in a case where the importer confirms his acceptance of the said re-assessment in writing - In the present case, the proper officer doubted the truth or accuracy of the value declared by the appellant for the reason that contemporaneous data had a significantly higher value. It was open to the appellant to require the proper officer to intimate the grounds in writing for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared and seek a reasonable opportunity of being heard, but the appellant did not do so. It needs to be noted that section 124 of the Customs Act provides for issuance of a show cause notice and personal hearing, and section 17(5) of the Customs Act requires a speaking order to be passed on the Bills of Entry, except in a case where the importer/exporter confirms the acceptance in writing. The very fact that the appellant had agreed for enhancement of the declared value in the letters submitted to the assessing authority, itself implies that the appellant had not accepted the value declared by it in the Bills of Entry. The value declared in the Bills of Entry, therefore, automatically stood rejected. Further, once the appellant had accepted the enhanced value, it was really not necessary for the assessing authority to undertake the exercise of determining the value of the declared goods under the provisions of rules 4 to 9 of the Valuation Rules - There was no necessity for the assessing officer to determine the value in the manner provided for in rules 4 to 9 of the Valuation Rules sequentially. Once the appellant had accepted the enhanced value it was not necessary for the revenue to determine the valuation as the consented value, in effect, became the declared transaction value. Further, once the appellant accepted the enhanced value it would not be open to the appellant to now contend that the procedure as contemplated under rule 12 of the Valuation Rules should have been complied with. In M/s Sunland Alloys vs C.C.,- Ahmedabad 2020 (6) TMI 71 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD the Tribunal found that the assessing authority had reassessed the Bills of Entries by enhancing the value not on the basis of the any material evidence but on the basis of Director General of Valuation guideline letter dated 15.11.2018. The Tribunal held that the assessing officer should have followed the provisions of the Valuation Rules and should not have made the reassessment only on the basis of the Director General of Valuation guideline. The reason would, therefore, not help the appellant. There is, therefore, no good reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the orders of reassessment - Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Enhancement of the assessable value of imported aluminium scrap.
2. Acceptance of enhanced value by the appellant.
3. Compliance with Customs Valuation Rules and related provisions.
4. Requirement of a speaking order when the enhanced value is accepted.

Summary:

1. Enhancement of Assessable Value:
The appellant imported various kinds of aluminium scrap and filed 92 Bills of Entry. The assessing officer enhanced the assessable value based on contemporaneous imports data. The appellant accepted this enhanced value in writing, stating no need for a speaking order or show cause notice and paid the customs duty accordingly.

2. Acceptance of Enhanced Value:
The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appellant's challenge to the enhanced value, noting that the appellant had accepted the re-determined value in writing and cleared the goods after paying the enhanced duty. The Commissioner found that the re-determined value was in line with London Metal Exchange prices with reasonable discounts.

3. Compliance with Customs Valuation Rules:
The appellant argued that the assessing officer did not provide specific instances or reasons for rejecting the declared value and enhancing it under Section 14 of the Customs Act and Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules. The Department countered that the appellant had agreed in writing to the enhanced value and did not request a personal hearing or speaking order, thus validating the enhancement.

4. Requirement of a Speaking Order:
Section 17(5) of the Customs Act requires a speaking order for re-assessment unless the importer accepts the re-assessment in writing. The Tribunal found that the appellant had submitted letters accepting the enhanced value and waived the requirement for a speaking order or show cause notice. The Tribunal held that once the appellant accepted the enhanced value, it became the declared transaction value, and no further valuation under Rules 4 to 9 was necessary.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), dismissing all 92 appeals filed by the appellant. The appellant's acceptance of the enhanced value in writing and payment of duty on that basis precluded any subsequent challenge to the valuation process. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's consent to the enhanced value rendered further valuation procedures unnecessary.

← Previous Next →