2024 (9) TMI 126 - AT - Customs

Challenge to enhancement of the value - imported aluminum scrap of various grades - rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - HELD THAT - In the present case, JSB Aluminium had made a categorical statement in the letters that it was accepting that the value declared by it in the Bills of Entry was lower than the value at which identical/similar goods had been imported at or about the same time in comparable quantities and in comparable commercial transactions and so the value declared by it in the Bills of Entry should be rejected under rule 12 of the 2007 Valuation Rules and re-determined under rule 9 on the price made known to it by the Assessing Officer, which price was acceptable to JSB Aluminium - The Assessing Officer was, therefore, not required to give reasons for rejection of the transaction value and determination of the assessable value. 10. It is well settled that what is admitted is not required to be proved by the department. This issue has been settled by the Supreme Court in Systems Components 2004 (2) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that ' Once it is an admitted position by the party itself, that these are parts of a Chilling Plant and the concerned party does not even dispute that they have no independent use there is no need for the Department to prove the same. It is a basic and settled law that what is admitted need not be proved.' The decision of the Supreme Court in Eicher Tractors 2000 (11) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT on which reliance has been placed by the Commissioner (Appeals) to hold that the transaction value cannot be rejected without clear and cogent evidence, would not be applicable to the facts of the case. Thus, for the reasons recorded in this order, and the reasons recorded by the Bench in Century Metal for setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the present impugned order dated 26.11.2020 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the 17 appeals deserves to be set aside and is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the enhancement of the value of imported goods by the Assessing Officer.
2. Acceptance of the enhanced value by the importer.
3. The role of consent letters submitted by the importer.
4. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Eicher Tractors Ltd.
5. The principle that what is admitted need not be proved.
6. Reliance on previous orders and decisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the enhancement of the value of imported goods by the Assessing Officer:

The Assessing Officer doubted the correctness of the value declared by the importer in the Bills of Entry based on contemporaneous import data of similar goods. The importer was informed of the grounds for rejecting the declared value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, and the value was subsequently enhanced. The importer accepted the enhanced value and paid the differential customs duty, leading to the clearance of goods.

2. Acceptance of the enhanced value by the importer:

The importer submitted letters stating that they accepted the value proposed by the Assessing Officer, acknowledging that the declared value was lower than the value of similar goods imported at the same time. The letters explicitly mentioned that the importer did not want any personal hearing or speaking order and requested the re-determination of the value and re-assessment of duty as proposed.

3. The role of consent letters submitted by the importer:

The consent letters played a crucial role in the re-assessment process. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the importer's appeals, setting aside the enhancement of the value and accepting the value declared in the Bills of Entry. However, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) ignored the consent letters, which contained categorical statements from the importer accepting the enhanced value and waiving the right to a personal hearing or speaking order.

4. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Eicher Tractors Ltd.:

The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Eicher Tractors Ltd., which held that transaction value cannot be rejected without clear and cogent evidence. However, the Tribunal found this decision inapplicable because, in the present case, the importer had accepted the enhanced value proposed by the Assessing Officer and waived the right to a show cause notice or speaking order.

5. The principle that what is admitted need not be proved:

The Tribunal emphasized that what is admitted need not be proved, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Systems & Components Pvt. Ltd. The importer's acceptance of the enhanced value in the consent letters meant that the department was not required to prove the correctness of the enhanced value.

6. Reliance on previous orders and decisions:

The Commissioner (Appeals) had previously set aside the enhancement of the assessable value in similar cases involving other importers. However, the Tribunal noted that this earlier order was set aside by the Tribunal in a subsequent decision. The Tribunal also referred to its decision in Century Metal, where similar issues were considered, and the importer's contention of coercion in submitting consent letters was examined.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the department's appeals, maintaining the enhancement in the value of the imported goods by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the consent letters submitted by the importer, which accepted the enhanced value and waived the right to a personal hearing or speaking order. The Tribunal also clarified that the Supreme Court's decision in Eicher Tractors Ltd. was not applicable in this case due to the importer's acceptance of the enhanced value.

← Previous Next →