9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sable values are set aside and original assessment orders passed by the assessing authorities are in gross violation of the procedure prescribed by the Board and the also in clear violation of principles of natural justice. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioners have failed to issue speaking orders inspite of request for such order by the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the assessment orders on the ground that requests for issue of speaking orders were made after the clearance of the goods and therefore no violation of principles of natural justice cannot be approved - the matter remanded to the original authority to issue a speaking orders after disclosing the relevant materials relied for enhancement of the values - Appeals a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). Several appeals were filed by them before the Commissioner (Appeals) in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, challenging the assessments so made and Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the orders. 5.1 Learned Advocate for the appellants, referring to the grounds of appeals (which are similar in all these appeals) submits that the bills of entry were assessed without following the procedure prescribed under Customs Valuation Rules. The declared transaction values have been rejected without giving any valid reason. They have taken clearances on payment of higher duty under protest to avoid demurrage, container retention charges, interest, ground rent and other incidental costs. The Commissioner (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants and the values of comparable goods are on the higher side. The appellants invariably declared lower values and the same were enhanced. The appellants paid the duty under protest and cleared the goods and sought for issue of speaking orders which requests were not acceded to. Thereafter, they filed appeals before the commissioner and the same were rejected on the ground that the enhancements have been made on the basis of values of comparable goods. For example, in the case relating to C/424/07, department seems to have relied upon contemporaneous higher import prices covered by bills of entry dated 3.10.06, 9.1.06, 23.1.06, 19.7.06 relating to imports by others. Similarly, in the case dealt with in Appeal No.C/162/09, the department c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... poraneous prices. Such prices are being made available by the Directorate of Valuation through the weekly transmissions of NIDB data and monthly Valuation Bulletins. It may not be out of place to mention here that the proper officer should follow the procedure laid down under Rule 10A of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 to satisfy himself about the possible under-valuation. He should then intimate the importer in writing the ground for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to the goods imported and also provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, before rejecting the declared value. In view of the above, all the officers in your jurisdiction may be intimated that where declared value is rejected, an appealab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether during the period in dispute, they have passed on the additional duty burden to the consumer or not. This issue may arise in the event of claim of refund in the context of unjust enrichment angle. However, this issue is not before us in the present set of appeals and the issue is only whether the enhancement of value is correctly done or not. 10.2 Typical letter of protest given by the appellants reads as follows: We imported a consignment as per particulars mentioned above. In this case declared invoice/transaction value based on manufacturers, commercial invoice submitted with the bill of entry was discarded and value after loading was adopted without disclosing any reasons therefor. No opportunity to defend the case was affor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alues of the goods. I find that the appellants had submitted letter dated .7.9.2006 in Appeal no.55/2006, letter dated 19.10.2006 in Appeal NO.57/2006 and again letter dated 19.10.2006 in Appeal No.58/2006 for issuing the speaking order only after getting the goods released, as evident from the copy of the said letter submitted to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Ballabgarh (placed on record). If the appellants really wanted the speaking order about for such orders before getting the goods released from the Customs authorities and their above letters asking fro such speaking orders after getting the goods released, rather show that the appellants were interested in getting the goods released even on the enhanced value and the said let ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
