9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cient acceptance that on 100% second time check by the competent officers that instead 1202.5 Sq. Mtr. of polished marble slabs only 140 Sq. Mtr. of polished marble slabs were found in the shipment. In addition, there were found granite slabs of 1470 Sq. Mtr. approx. quantity, which were not declared in the Bill of Entry - Apparently and admittedly no protest was raised by the appellant. A speaking order was passed by the officer on 07-07-2017 based on the examination report and the explanation by the appellant. In the another decision of this Tribunal in the case of VIKAS SPINNERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, LUCKNOW [ 2000 (11) TMI 196 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI ], it was held clearly that the enhanced value once settled and duty having been paid accordingly without protest, importer is estopped from challenging the same subsequently. It also holds that enhanced value uncontested and voluntarily accepted, and accordingly payment of duty made discharges the burden of the department to establish declared value to be incorrect. There are no infirmity in the order under challenge. As a result, the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is hereby upheld - appeal dismissed. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reassessed customs duty of Rs.21,14,242/-. 4. Accordingly, the differential duty of Rs.1230419/- was proposed to be recovered from the appellant. The appellant vide their letter dated 13.06.2017 had accepted their mistake and expressed their readiness to pay the said amount of differential duty. They also requested for the waiver of Show Cause Notice. Pursuant there to that the Order-in-Original No.74/2017 dated 07.07.2017 was passed rejecting the declared invoice value of the impugned goods. The goods valued at Rs.20,44,544/- were ordered to be confiscated. The consignment was re-assessed at Rs.52,16,883/- and re-assessed duty at Rs.21,14,242/-. The order was challenged before Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order has rejected the appeal. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 5. We have heard Ms. Reena Rawat, ld. Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Authorised Representative for the Revenue. 6. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the visual examination of the consignment by the Shed Officers was highly insufficient to conclude that the consignment has mixed var ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise, Madras vs. System Components Pvt. Ltd. Reported as 2004 (165) ELT 136 (SC). 4. Saraswati Sales Corp vs. CCE reported as 2011 (266) ELT 237 (Tri.-Delhi) 5. Sound N Images vs. Commissioner reported as 2000 (117) ELT 538 (SC) 9. Having heard the rival contentions, we observe and hold as follows:- This is a case of rejection of declared value post the 100% examination of the consignment imported by the appellant in presence of his authorised representative, his CHA. No doubt in terms of Rule 3 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods), Rules, 2007 (hereinafter called as the Valuation Rules) read with Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962, it is the transaction value of such goods i.e. the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India for delivery at the time and place of importation or, as the case may be, for export from India for delivery at the time and place of exportation, where the buyer and seller of the goods are not related and price is the sole consideration for the same, which has to be accepted. This understanding of transaction value is subject to rule 12 of the Valuation Rules. Hon ble Apex Court in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lanation 1(iii)(a) provides that the proper officer can have doubts regarding the truth or accuracy of the declared value if the goods of a comparable nature were assessed at a significantly higher value at about the same time. 10. Reverting to the facts of the case, there is appellant s own letter dated 13.06.2017 acknowledging that the shipment was imported while declaring the shipment of polished marble slabs (CTH) 68022190. There is sufficient acceptance that on 100% second time check by the competent officers that instead 1202.5 Sq. Mtr. of polished marble slabs only 140 Sq. Mtr. of polished marble slabs were found in the shipment. In addition, there were found granite slabs of 1470 Sq. Mtr. approx. quantity, which were not declared in the Bill of Entry. There is no denial to this fact that on appellant s own waiver of Show Cause Notice that the proper officer had assessed the duty based upon the value of polished marble slabs declared by appellant himself and the minimum value of granite slabs as per DGFT Notification No. 28 29/2015 2020 dated 17/9/2016. Apparently and admittedly no protest was raised by the appellant. A speaking order was passed by the officer on 07 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
