9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at re- assessment order needs to be accepted positively by the importer and it cannot be derived in an implied manner that re- assessment order has been accepted. In absence of the written acceptance by the importer/ exporter, this section mandatorily provides that proper officer has to issue the speaking order for the re-assessment done within fifteen days of such re- assessment - there are no merits in the said findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeal). The documents relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeal) were never made available to appellant for replying to the same either by Commissioner (Appeal) or the assessing officer. Thus the impugned order has been passed contrary to the settled principles of natural justice and has no legs to stand on - the matter needs to be remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeal) for reconsideration of the entire issue after making available to the appellants all the documents and communications that revenue wishes to rely upon and hearing the appellants on the same. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Customs Appeal No. 87897-87898 of 2013 - A/85652-85653/2022 - Dated:- 18-7-2022 - MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MR. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to them three months after passing the order. Since these submissions made by the Custom Officers before Commissioner (Appeal) were never given to him before decision in appeal, he had no occasion to reply to the same. In view of this the order has been passed grossly in violation of the principle of natural justice. The appeals may be allowed 3.3 Learned authorized representative re-iterates the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeal) in the impugned order. 4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of arguments on appeal. 4.2 Admittedly in this case the value of the goods as declared by the Appellants at the time of filing the Bill of Entry has been enhanced by the assessing officer. However no order under Section 17 (5) of Customs Act, 1962 (reproduced below) has been passed by the assessing officer: (5) Where any re-assessment done under sub-section (4) is contrary to the self-assessment done by the importer or exporter regarding valuation of goods, classification, exemption or concessions of duty availed consequent to any notification issued therefore under this Act and in cases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . No. S/26 -MISC-082 83/2013 (III) dated 29.01.2013 30.01.2013 enclosing the print outs of the contemporaneous import prices of the impugned goods from the NIDB database . Appellant's representative. reiterated the grounds of appeal. He further contended that the loading of value was arbitrary reassessment without passing a speaking order in terms of the provisions of section 17(5) of Customs Act 1962, is against natural justice. Department reiterated that value has been loaded as per Customs valuation rules. The Department's written submission states that the loading of value was on the following reasons: A) The values of the impugned goods are declared at US$ 2.5 US$ 2.7, respectively. But the assessing officer, on the strength of NIDB data base doubted the genuineness of the transaction values. Hence, the declared value was rejected in terms of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. B) Thus, in terms of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, as the value could not be determined under the provisions of a sub-rule (1) of Rule 3, it was arrived at by following the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les, 2007 based on the contemporaneous imports, similar of which were found to be in the price range from Rs. 261/- per kg to Rs. 274/- per kg. accordingly, the subject goods were assessed at US$ 4.60/kg US$ 4.70/ kg respectively. Again, the value proposed was accepted by the appellant/ authorized representative of the appellant. The duty on enhanced value was paid without protest. This shows acceptance of the reassessed value. 4.4 Appellants after receiving the impugned order, wrote a letter to the Commissioner (Appeal) dated 27.06.2013 received in the Office of Commissioner (Appeal) on 27.06.2013 and placed in the Appeal Paper Book at page 47 stating as follows: Sub: Order in Appeal No 316, 317 318/MCH/DC/Gr-I/2013 dt 20.5.2013 and request for furnishing copies of Documents filed by the department-reg Ref: S/49-535,536 537/Cus/Mum-I/2012/NCH 1. Kindly refer to the above Order in Appeal No 316, 317 318/MCH/DC/Gr-I/2013 dt 20.5.2013 wherein appeal filed by us was dismissed on the ground that the department/ respondent vide letter No. S/26 -MISC-082 83/2013 (III) dated 29.01.2013 30.01.2013 have filed print outs of contemporaneous import prices from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
