2023 (4) TMI 17 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - Motorcycle and Alloy Wheels 18 inches 19 inches - enhancement of value - no speaking order was passed by the Assessing Officer - HELD THAT - When the appellant was shown the details of how the value was calculated, the appellant accepted that it was based on the value ascertained during the market survey and also undertook to pay the differential value with interest. On the basis of the statements made by the proprietor of the appellant, a detailed order dated May 04, 2017 was passed by the Assessing Officer for re-determination of the market value and this order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated May 31, 2019. The appeal filed by the appellant to assail this order has been dismissed by order of date. It appears that for this reason the customs house agent of the appellant accepted the value on the hardcopies of the Bills and the differential duty was also paid by the appellant. As the re-determined amount was accepted by the customs house representative of the appellant, there was no necessity for the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the order that has been impugned in this appeal has also noted that an order dated May 05, 2017 was passed by the Assessing Officer in regard to similar/identical goods on the basis of a market survey that was conducted. Much emphasis has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the letters sent to the Assessing Officer for passing a speaking order. These letters were submitted by the appellant after the appellant had accepted the value and the goods had been cleared on payment of the differential duty. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against enhancement of value in Bills of Entry dismissed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).

Analysis:
The appellant filed five Bills of Entry for clearance of imported goods, declaring values for Alloy Wheels. The assessing officer increased the value resulting in higher duty payable. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals as the customs house agent accepted the enhanced value, and duty was paid without a speaking order. The appellant challenged the lack of a speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) found the declared value low compared to contemporaneous imports, justifying the value enhancement. The appellant's acceptance of the re-determined value was evidenced by the letter from the department. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) for similar goods, upheld in previous appeals.

The Commissioner (Appeals) took cognizance of the department's letter and the order by the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) for identical goods imported by the appellant. The appellant's appeal against the order for similar goods was dismissed previously. The appellant's customs house agent accepted the value, and the differential duty was paid. The Tribunal noted that the value determination process was detailed in a previous appeal, and the submissions made by the appellant were previously considered and rejected. Emphasis was placed on letters sent to the Assessing Officer after accepting the value and clearing the goods. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, the appellant's arguments, the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), and the Tribunal's decision based on previous orders and submissions.