2024 (8) TMI 960 - AT - Customs

Assessment of value of the qualities of aluminum scrap imported by M/s CMR Nikkei India Private Limited through the 56 Bills of Entry on the value declared by the respondent - Assessing Officer had not passed a speaking order for enhancement of the value - HELD THAT - The Assessing Officer was required to pass a detailed order after stating the facts of the matter before him and giving reasons as to whether the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading 2018 (12) TMI 738 - SUPREME COURT would be applicable since the matter was decided in terms of this judgment. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, without any examination of facts and law has merely held that the matter stands covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading. The matter would, therefore, have to be remanded to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh speaking order. The order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, cannot be sustained and is set aside - Petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the value assessment of aluminum scrap imported by the respondent.
2. Validity of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner assessing the value of the goods at the declared value.
3. Interpretation of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading in relation to the assessment of imported goods.
4. Compliance with the principles laid down by the Tribunal in Customs Appeal No. 51976 of 2019 regarding importers consenting to enhanced values.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Customs to challenge the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the value assessment of aluminum scrap imported by the respondent. The initial doubt regarding the accuracy of the declared value led to a proposed enhancement by the Assessing Officer, which was accepted by the respondent. However, upon appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to provide grounds for enhancement. The subsequent order by the Deputy Commissioner assessed the value again at the declared amount, citing a Supreme Court judgment.

2. The Deputy Commissioner's order, based on the Supreme Court judgment in Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading, was contested by the department before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order, emphasizing that the assessment should be at the declared value as there was no new evidence supporting a higher valuation. The department's argument that a detailed order was required was countered by the respondent, asserting the judgment's applicability to the case.

3. The judgment in Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading was pivotal in determining the assessment of the imported goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on this judgment to reject the department's appeal, emphasizing that the DGOV Circular could not override valuation rules. The respondent contended that the matter was covered by the Supreme Court judgment, while the department sought a detailed order from the Assessing Officer.

4. The Tribunal's decision in Customs Appeal No. 51976 of 2019 provided principles for cases where importers consented to enhanced values. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh speaking order considering these principles, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The respondent's Cross-Objection was disposed of with liberty to raise issues before the Assessing Authority, emphasizing compliance with the Tribunal's decision.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of following legal principles and precedents in assessing imported goods, emphasizing the need for detailed orders and compliance with relevant judgments and circulars.