9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the transaction value should be rejected for cogent reasons prescribed in the Customs Valuation Rules. If the transaction value is rejected, then the Customs Valuation Rules prescribes the basis for arriving at the assessable value. Perusal of the records of the case indicates that the only reason cited for re-assessment of value is that the Appellant has accepted the enhanced value. No doubt acceptance of the enhanced value in writing waives the requirement of the issue of speaking order under Section 17(5) ibid. However, the requirement of Section 14 and the Customs Valuation Rules need to be satisfied for enhancement of value. Nothing is forthcoming from the record of the case that what is the basis for such re-assessment - Neithe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Bills of Entry is as per the invoice of the foreign supplier. The Assessing officer did not accept the transaction value declared in the Bills of Entry and reassessed the Bills of Entry by enhancing the value on the basis of Circular issued by Director General of Valuation. Appellant challenged the said reassessment and filed the Appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned orders rejected the Appeals on the grounds that the Appellant have given a consent letter accepting the enhanced value of the Assessing authority, therefore, the Appellant is not a aggrieved person. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders-in-appeal the Appellant filed the present Appeals. 3. Shri Ashok Sikka, learned Authorised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubt the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to imported goods for which Bills of Entry were filed, he has to ask the importer further information including documents or other evidence in respect of such goods. If the doubt persists then he cannot determine the value as per provisions of sub-Rule 1 of Rule 3. There is no inquiry made by the Assessing officer as well as not demanded any documents or documentary evidence in respect of imported goods for which the declared value was rejected. 6. He placed reliance on the following decisions. (a) Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Limited vs. UOI- 2019 (367) ELT 3 (SC) (b) Sunland Alloys vs. CC Ahmedabad 2020-(6) TMI 71 CESTAT (c) Guru Rajendra Mealloys India Pvt. Ltd. vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as per requirements for Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. 9. Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs Valuation Rules makes it abundantly clear that transaction value in the ordinary course of commerce is to be taken as the assessable value. The Customs Valuation Rules outlines the step-by-step methodology to be adopted for re-determination of the assessable value in certain cases. The primary requirement for re-determination of the value is that the transaction value should be rejected for cogent reasons prescribed in the Customs Valuation Rules. If the transaction value is rejected, then the Customs Valuation Rules prescribes the basis for arriving at the assessable value. 10. Perusal of the records of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
