2023 (10) TMI 762 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - Glass Beads Chaton - rejection of declared value - reassessment of goods by loading the value as per the contemporaneous imports of identical goods which was done on the ICES EDI System - request a personal hearing not considered - goods were reassessed without following the principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is on record that under EDI system, the assessing officer had made a query and also requested for certain documents and also email ID for conducting personal hearing but the respondent had replied to the query and provided certain documents but did not provide email ID for conducting personal hearing. Therefore, the Commissioner (A) was wrong in stating that the principles of natural justice was not followed. Moreover, the evidences provided before the Commissioner (A) vide Bill of Entry 3636934 dated 20.04.2021 was a Bill of Entry cleared subsequently to the item imported vide Bill of Entry No.2902619 dated 25.2.2021. Therefore, the Commissioner (A) s observation that on given the fact that earlier imports from the same supplier of Glass Beads Chatons have been accepted by the Department was incorrect and baseless. The matter is remanded back to the original adjudicating authority for deciding the matter afresh. The fact that the subsequent imports were cleared without enhancement of value may be taken on record before deciding the assessment of Bill of Entry in question.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the rejection of declared value by the Assessing Officer, violation of principles of natural justice, inconsistency in assessment practices, and the request for remand by the Revenue.

Rejection of Declared Value:
The respondent, an importer, had imported 'Glass Beads Chaton' which was reassessed by the Assessing Officer by loading the value based on contemporaneous imports of identical goods on the ICES EDI System. The respondent appealed before the Commissioner (A) citing lack of opportunity for a personal hearing and inconsistency in assessment practices at different ports. The Commissioner (A) allowed the appeal, emphasizing the violation of natural justice principles and the inconsistency in assessment practices, setting aside the enhancement of value.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The Revenue contested the Commissioner (A)'s decision, arguing that the Assessing Officer had requested documents and an email ID for a virtual personal hearing through the EDI system, but the respondent did not provide the email ID. The Revenue sought a remand for a fresh assessment, highlighting that the Commissioner (A) incorrectly concluded that natural justice principles were not followed. The Revenue provided evidence of the query raised and documents requested, indicating the respondent's unsatisfactory response.

Inconsistency in Assessment Practices:
The respondent defended their valuation by pointing out that subsequent imports of the same item from the same supplier were cleared without an enhancement of value. However, the Tribunal noted that the evidence presented by the Commissioner (A) regarding earlier imports was factually incorrect, as it pertained to a subsequent Bill of Entry. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (A)'s order and remanded the matter for a fresh assessment, considering the clearance of subsequent imports without value enhancement.

Remand Request by Revenue:
After hearing both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had indeed requested documents and an email ID for a personal hearing, which the respondent did not provide. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (A) erred in stating that natural justice principles were violated and that the evidence presented regarding earlier imports was inaccurate. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for a personal hearing and a decision within four weeks from the date of the order.