9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 15 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - Aluminium Scrap - rejection of transaction value - procedure contemplated under Rule 12 of the valuation rules not followed - Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), while allowing the appeal of the importer, set aside the re-assessment of goods at enhanced value and restored the self-assessment at the declared value - HELD THAT - On identical facts, this Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS DELHI VERSUS M/S HANUMAN PRASAD SONS 2020 (12) TMI 1092 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has examined the provisions relating to valuation as prescribed in the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and after examining the same, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that when the importer has voluntarily accepted the enhanced value without any protest then in that case it is not incumbent upon the department to pass a speaking order. In the case of CC (IMPORT) , ICD, TKD, NEW DELHI VERSUS M/S SODAGAR KNITWEAR 2018 (5) TMI 686 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where the Tribunal has held that once the importer voluntary accepted the enhancement then he is precluded from challenging the same. This judgement of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon ble Apex Court in SODAGAR KNITWEAR VERSUS COMMISSIONER 2018 (8) TMI 1777 - SC ORDER wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has held that we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CESTAT, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order is not sustainable in law - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Voluntary acceptance of enhanced value by the importer. 3. Requirement of a speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Admissibility of written admission before an Assessing Officer as evidence. 5. Applicability of previous judgments on identical issues. Summary: Validity of the Impugned Order: The Revenue challenged the impugned order dated 19.03.2020, wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the re-assessment of duties at the declared value. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not properly appreciate the facts and evidence on record and failed to consider the law laid down by the Tribunal on identical issues. Voluntary Acceptance of Enhanced Value:The Tribunal noted that the importer voluntarily accepted the enhanced value without any protest and did not request a show cause notice or personal hearing. This acceptance was considered a waiver of the right to challenge the re-assessment. The Tribunal emphasized that once the importer consents to the enhanced value, it becomes unnecessary for the Revenue to establish the valuation further. Requirement of a Speaking Order:It was argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that a speaking order was required despite the importer's voluntary acceptance of the enhanced value. The Tribunal clarified that under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, a speaking order is not necessary if the importer confirms acceptance of the re-assessment in writing. Admissibility of Written Admission:The Tribunal upheld that a written admission before an Assessing Officer is admissible evidence. In this case, the importer's written acceptance of the enhanced value was sufficient to negate the need for a speaking order or further investigation into the declared value. Applicability of Previous Judgments:The Tribunal referred to several precedents, including the case of Commissioner of Customs, Delhi vs. M/s Hanuman Prasad & Sons, which supported the view that voluntary acceptance of enhanced value precludes the necessity for a speaking order. The Tribunal also cited decisions where the voluntary acceptance of value by the importer was held as binding, thereby upholding the department's actions. Conclusion:After considering the submissions and precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) was not sustainable in law. The appeals of the department were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. (Pronounced on 29.11.2023)
|
