9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 633X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their challenge to the adoption of the enhanced value was pending in appeal as on the date of the said letter. Vide Orders-in-Appeal, the First Appellate Authority had termed as unsustainable and set aside vide orders passed on 27.03.2013 and 29.05.2013. By this, it is evident that the so-called consent letter was not a blank cheque to be adopted universally and for all the imports the appellant could ever make. The authorities have nowhere given any acceptable reasons as to why they jumped to adopt Rule 4 ibid. and the valuation prescribed thereunder, instead of following the Rules sequentially. From the records, nowhere it is seen that the appellant was furnished with the NIDB data or whatsoever that was relied upon for enhancemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms Act, 1962. The above order was in respect of 30 Bills-of-Entry filed during the period from 24.11.2012 and 28.01.2013. In respect of the other 10 Bills-of-Entry filed for the period from 08.02.2013 to 28.02.2013 also, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal Nos. 288 to 298/2013 dated 29.05.2013 passed the same remand order. 3. In the second round of litigation, the Original Authority has observed in his Order-in-Original No. 790/2013 passed on 23.09.2013 that the importer inter alia had given a consent letter dated 07.02.2013 agreeing to the valuation at US$ 0.07 per stem, which was also held to be in accordance with Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules. 4. The appellant chose to file appeal again, but the Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.2013. By this, it is evident that the so-called consent letter was not a blank cheque to be adopted universally and for all the imports the appellant could ever make. 8.2 Moreover, the authorities have nowhere given any acceptable reasons as to why they jumped to adopt Rule 4 ibid. and the valuation prescribed thereunder, instead of following the Rules sequentially. From the records, nowhere do we see that the appellant was furnished with the NIDB data or whatsoever that was relied upon for enhancement of the value, for rebuttal, which is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice. 8.3 Further, we also do not see anywhere any justification as to why and how the valuation declared at US$ 0.03 per stem could not be ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
