2016 (4) TMI 140 - AT - Customs

Enhancement of value of goods imported from US 4.22 per kg to 5.61 per kg - Deposition of duty collected on loaded value under protest - Held that - the grounds of appeal is not controverting the factual findings. The findings of the first appellate authority are correct and having not issued a show-cause notice and followed the principal of natural justice, the assessment of Bill of Entry by loading the value is incorrect. Therefore, the impugned order is correct,legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. - Decided against the revenue

Summary

Issues:
Enhancement of imported goods value from US$ 4.22 to 5.61 per kg without proper evidence or due process.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai was filed by the Revenue against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The issue revolved around the enhancement of the value of imported goods from US$ 4.22 per kg to 5.61 per kg. The respondent had deposited the duty calculated on the loaded value under protest and appealed before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority set aside the impugned order, citing various reasons. The lower authority had failed to produce evidence of contemporaneous imports to support the enhanced value, violating the burden of proof principle as established in previous cases. Moreover, the lower authority had enhanced the declared value without issuing a show-cause notice or providing an opportunity for a personal hearing, which was deemed a violation of natural justice. The first appellate authority's decision was considered correct as it highlighted the procedural lapses and failure to follow Rule 10A of the CVR 1988.

The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the arguments and findings, upheld the decision of the first appellate authority. It was concluded that the impugned order was correct, legal, and devoid of any infirmity. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming that the assessment of the Bill of Entry by loading the value was incorrect due to the lack of procedural fairness and evidence supporting the value enhancement. The operative portion of the order was pronounced on 02.02.2016, finalizing the decision in this case.