9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etermined value by the Department comes to Rs. 28,51,047/-. Thus, the goods covered by these 04 Bills of Entry involve differential duty of Customs of Rs. 12,86,463/- as given below:- Sl. No. Bill of Entry No./Date Quantity (in Kgs. /Mtr.) Declared value Declared Duty Assessed enhanced value Assessed Enhanced Duty Differential Duty 1 2132821 dt. 20.02.2019 23063.6 KGS 1613012 378735 3154935 740779 362044 2 2065121 dt. 15.02.2019 22945.3 KGS. 1604060 37663 3138074 736820 360187 3 2132808 dt. 20.02.2019 199729 MTR 1547970 434980 2281648 641143 206163 4 2056567 dt. 14.02.2019 22810.4 KGS 1593852 374236 3118847 732305 358069 Total 6358894 1564584 11693504 2851047 1286463 3. The respondent importer challenged re-assessment of duty by the department and filed four appeals with the office of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Custom House, Near IGI Airport, New Delhi who passed Order-in-appeal No. CC(A)/CUS/ D-II/ ICD-PPG-PIYALA/178-181/2019-20/706 dated 24.05.2019. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) set aside re-assessment of goods at enhanced value and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Entry No. 2056567 dt. 14.02.19, the respondent has agreed that: i) The value of goods declared by them is liable to be rejected by Customs Authorities under the provisions of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods), Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. ii) Therefore, the value of the goods imported by them under the above Bills of Entry is liable to be re-determined from the declared value $1.03 per Kg. to $1.94 per Kg. & $.011 per meter to $0.16 per meter, on the basis of data of contemporaneous import of similar / imported goods in terms of Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of imported Goods) Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the duty payable is liable to be enhanced accordingly under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4.2 Regarding uniform enhancement of value, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that wherever description of imported goods was same, uniform enhancement of value of the goods was obvious. In some cases, enhancement of value is different. More importantly, value enhancement was duly accepted by the importer and the rig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er confirms his acceptance of the said enhancement in assessment in writing. The department could have issued speaking order if an opportunity was provided, in the interest of justice. The department is also placing reliance on the following case laws:- * Veera Ibrahim Vs. State of Maharashtra -1983 (13) ELT 1590 (SC). "Statement recorded before the Customs Officer are not hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India." Although, the decision is about admission under Section 108 of the Customs Act, but it supports the case of the department when the Importer had voluntarily admitted value enhancement before the Customs Officer. * Surjeet Singh Chabbra Vs. UOI -1997 (89) ELT 646 (SC) "Customs officials are not Police Officers and admission made before them though retracted, binds the deponent." In the instant case, acceptance of value enhancement before Customs Officer, was not even retracted by the Importer and duty on the enhanced value was paid, without showing any protest. 4.7 On being shown the contemporaneous import data of Bill of Entry No. 2132821 dt. 20.02.2019, 2065121 dt. 15.02.19, 2132808 dt. 20.02.19, 2056567 dt. 14.02.19 etc., the importer accepted that value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urges that:- i) The respondents filed the impugned Bills of Entry for import of various kinds of Polyester Knitted Fabric of different weight and colour on the basis of self-assessment of duty on the transaction value and were re-assessed by revenue at values higher than the declared values. To avoid the loss of demurrage and detention, the respondents paid the enhanced customs duty under protest. It is also submitted that vide letter dated 21.02.2019 the respondents requested the Deputy Commissioner regarding release of goods provisionally to save detention and demurrage. And further the respondents through letter dated 15.03.2019 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner requested to issue a speaking order against the re-assessment of the Bills of Entry. ii) It is submitted that the ratio of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dunlop India Ltd. vs. Union of India -1983 (13) ELT 1566 (SC) is squarely applicable in the present matter wherein it has been held that the appellant's acceptance of enhanced value proposed by the Department during assessment and clearance to save demurrage, does not preclude the appellant from challenging the enhancement b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of identical/ similar goods imported at or about same time in comparable commercial quantity. The respondent had further stated in the said letter that the value of the goods is liable to be re-determined from the declared value of USD0.11 per mtr. to USD0.16 per mtr. This acceptance was given in respect of Bill of Entry No. 2132808. Similar acceptance was given under the 'undue influence' exerted by the officer of Customs Department. Thus, the consent of the respondent /importer was not free for enhancement of the transaction value. Ld. Commissioner (appeals) have rightly observed that the Assessing Authority was under an obligation under the provisions of Section 17(4) read with 17(5) of the Act, to pass a speaking order disclosing the grounds for rejecting the declared value and then resorting to loading or enhancement in accordance with law. The Commissioner (Appeals) has further observed that the declared value can be rejected on the basis of reasonable and cogent evidence only and Revenue should discharge the heavy burden to prove that invoice value does not represent the true transaction value of the imported goods. Ld. Counsel relies on the ruling of Coordinate Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
