2021 (3) TMI 415 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - enhancement of the custom value of the imported goods - HELD THAT - Though the appellant, at the time of clearance of the goods, given consent for the enhancement of the value, however at the same time they have protested the enhancement by requesting for speaking order vide letter dated 14.05.2019 and a reminder letter dated 27.05.2019. Thereafter, the assessing authority i.e Deputy Commissioner of customs passed a speaking order dated 15.05.2019. In these circumstances the appellant has right to appeal against the speaking order. Therefore, it cannot be said that only because the appellant has given the consent, appellant cannot challenge the enhancement of value. There is a clear violation of principles of natural justice on the part of the assessing authority. The speaking order, which was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, will not sustain - matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for passing a de-novo speaking order after providing all the necessary documents in support of enhancement of the value and granting the appellant sufficient opportunity of personal hearing. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of consent for enhancement of custom value, Violation of principles of natural justice in passing speaking order without evidence or hearing, Appellant's right to challenge enhancement despite giving consent, Remand for passing a de-novo speaking order with necessary documents and personal hearing.

Analysis:
The appeal in this case was filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appeal due to the appellant's consent for enhancing the custom value of imported goods to US $ 0.86, without providing any findings on merits. The appellant, through their consultant, argued that while consent was given for clearance, they challenged the enhancement by requesting a speaking order, which was passed without evidence or a hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The appellant's position was supported by legal precedents indicating that consent for clearance does not prevent challenging valuation. The revenue's representative contended that since enhancement was based on appellant's consent, they lacked standing to challenge it, citing a relevant judgment.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the appellant, despite giving consent for value enhancement during clearance, protested the same by requesting a speaking order and a reminder. The assessing authority passed the speaking order without providing evidence or a personal hearing, breaching natural justice principles. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the speaking order, tainted by this violation, was unsustainable. Both lower authorities' orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for a de-novo speaking order with proper documentation and a personal hearing for the appellant. The appeal was allowed through remand. Additionally, due to pending cases, the Adjudicating Authority was directed to expedite the de-novo order within three months from the date of the Tribunal's order.