2017 (3) TMI 346 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - natural justice - Held that - the Original Authority has enhanced the value of the good imported without giving any opportunity to the appellant to present their case - matter remanded back to the Original Authority with a direction to give opportunity of presenting the case to the appellant and pass reasoned order for coming to the conclusion for passing a particular order - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.GZB-EXCUS-000-APP-265 to 266-2013-14 dated 28/03/2014.
2. Enhancement of value of imported goods without providing reasons.
3. Failure to pass a speaking order by the Original Authority.
4. Opportunity to present the case before enhancing the value.
5. Legality of Order-in-Appeal and Order-in-Original.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a company, filed an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.GZB-EXCUS-000-APP-265 to 266-2013-14 dated 28/03/2014 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Ghaziabad. The dispute arose from the classification and assessment of imported goods, "Secondary/ Defective CRGC Silicon Electrical Steel Strips," under CTH - 72261100. The Original Authority disagreed with the assessable value claimed by the appellant in the Bills of Entry, leading to a dispute over the customs duty paid on the enhanced value.

2. The appellant argued that the Original Authority enhanced the value of the imported goods without providing any reasons or passing a speaking order. They contended that the enhancement was not in line with the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. Additionally, the appellant claimed that the Assessing Authority did not justify the rejection of the transaction value declared in the Bills of Entry.

3. The appellant further contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the lack of reasons provided by the Original Authority for reassessing the goods' value. They argued that the Commissioner misconstrued their submissions and decided the issue without considering the facts and submissions on record, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

4. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel highlighted that the Original Authority did not pass a speaking order and did not allow the appellant to present their case before enhancing the value of the goods. They argued that both the Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal were legally untenable due to the lack of procedural fairness.

5. After considering the arguments from both sides, the Member (Technical) set aside the Assessment Order and Order-in-Appeal, remanding the matter back to the Original Authority. The directive included providing the appellant with an opportunity to present their case and pass a reasoned order for the decision made. The appellant was instructed to submit a copy of the order to the Original Assessing Authority within 30 days, who then had to provide the appellant with an opportunity to present their case within the same timeframe and pass orders within 30 days thereafter. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, granting the appellant consequential relief as per the law.

← Previous Next →