9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 007 Valuation Rules. It is well settled that what is admitted is not required to be proved by the department. This issue has been settled by the Supreme Court in Systems Components [ 2004 (2) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT ] where it was held that 'Once it is an admitted position by the party itself, that these are parts of a Chilling Plant and the concerned party does not even dispute that they have no independent use there is no need for the Department to prove the same. It is a basic and settled law that what is admitted need not be proved.' The order dated 05.04.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the 57 appeals deserves to be set aside and is set aside. All the 57 appeals filed by the department are, accordingly, allowed and the enhancement in the value of the imported goods by the Assessing Officer is maintained - Appeal of Revenue allowed. - C/51988/2019, C/51989/2019 C/51990/2019 C/51991/2019 C/51992/2019, C/51993/2019 C/51994/2019 C/51995/2019 C/51996/2019, C/51997/2019 C/51998/2019 C/51999/2019 C/52000/2019 C/52001/2019 C/52002/2019 C/52003/2019 And Customs Appeal No. 52004 of 2019 And Customs Cross Objection No. 50147 of 2021 With C/52005/2019 C/52006/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when confronted with contemporaneous data by the Assessing Officer, CMR Nikkei not only submitted letters that the value declared in the Bills of Entry should be rejected, but also accepted the value proposed by the Assessing Officer. The value was, accordingly, enhanced by the Assessing Officer and CMR Nikkei, paid the differential duty of customs. The goods were cleared after the out of charge order was issued by the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, CMR Nikkei filed 29 appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) to challenge the enhancement of the value. These appeals have been allowed by a common order dated 05.04.2019. The enhancement of the value has been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the value declared by CMR Nikkei in the Bills of Entry has been accepted. This order has been assailed by the department in the second set of appeals from Customs Appeal No. 52004 of 2019 to Customs Appeal No. 52032 of 2019. Customs Cross Objection No. 50147 of 2021 have been filed by CMR Nikkei. 3. The records indicate that Century Metal submitted 28 Bills of Entry. The value of the goods declared in these Bills appeared to be on the lower side to the Assessing Officer when compared to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acceptance we do not want any personal hearing or speaking order in the matter. You are requested to kindly redetermine the value and re-assess the duty in accordance with the value/duty as proposed. Yours sincerely, FOR CENTURY METAL RECYCLING LTD. Sd/- Authorized Signatory (emphasis supplied) 4. Identical letters were submitted by Century Metal to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs in respect of the remaining 27 Bills of Entry. 5. CMR Nikkei also submitted identical letters, as were submitted by Century Metal, to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs for each of the 29 Bills of Entry. 6. It, therefore, clearly transpires that both Century Metal and CMR Nikkei, in respect of all the 57 Bills of Entry, after clearly stating that they had been informed about the grounds for rejection of the declared value in the Bills of Entry and after they had gone through and understood the details of contemporaneous imports of similar/identical goods informed by the customs department, accepted that the value declared by them was lower than the value at which identical/similar goods were imported at or about the same time in comparable quantities and in comparable commercial transaction at ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elevant portion of the order dated 05.04.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), is reproduced below: 6. I observe that the instant matter is identical to the appeals decided by undersigned in the same matter of appellants vide ORDERS-INAPPEAL NO 12 to 161(SM)CUS/JPR/2018 dated 25.5.2018. Now the Deputy Commissioner, I.C.D. CONCOR, Jaipur in the remand proceedings vide Orderin-Original No. 61/2018/DC dated 08.03.2019 relying upon the order dated 10.12.2018 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sanjivani Non Ferrous Trading Pvt Ltd has ordered for assessment of the imported goods at declared value. ***** 8. I also find that the department preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the Hon'ble CESTAT order supra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the appeal of the department (reported in 2019 (365) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] has dismissed the appeal of the department. 9. In the instant matter also, the value of the imported goods have been enhanced on the basis of the DGOV circular. I observe that the DGOV Circular cannot override the provisions of Valuation Rules and accordingly following the above decision of the Hon'ble CESTAT and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant Commissioner has not been retracted. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Tribunal in DJP International vs. Commissioner of Customs (ICD), New Delhi [2017 (350) E.L.T. 294 (Tri.- Del)] . Learned authorised representative also pointed out that the appeal filed by the department against the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 08.07.2016 in DJP International vs. Commissioner of Customs (ICD), New Delhi [2017 (350) E.L.T. A65 (S.C.)]; (v) The basis for re-determination of the value was shown and explained to the importers and the method of redetermination of value was also shown to the importers; (vi) Once the out of charge had been given, it is not open to the importers to contest the value for the reason that it is not possible for the department to inspect the goods. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Tribunal in Advanced Scan Support Technologies vs. Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur [2015 (326) E.L.T. 185 (Tri.-Del.)]; and (vii) The Commissioner (Appeals) committed an error in observing that the value of the imported goods had been enhanced on the basis of a Circular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt. Ltd.; (b) Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI [2019 (367) E.L.T 3 (SC)]; (c) Guru Rajendra Metalloys India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad [2020 (374) ELT 617 (Tri-Ahmd)]; and (d) Supreme Industries Ltd. vs. CBIC [2021 (377) ELT 698 (Bom)]; (viii) Department has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of law; and (ix) The monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal was Rs. 50 lakhs by Circular dated 02.11.2023 and its predecessor Circular /Notification. In terms of paragraph 3 of the Circular, the pending matters would have to be withdrawn. The valuation of each of the appeals would reveal that none of the appeals involve tax instance of Rs. 50 lakhs or above. The appeals filed by the department would, therefore, have to be dismissed for this reason. 11. The submissions advanced by the learned authorized representative for the department and the learned counsel for the respondents have been considered. 12. What transpires from the records is that both Century Metal and CMR Nikkei had declared a certain value of the goods in the 57 Bills of Entry. 13. Section 14 of the Customs Act deals with valuation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oper officer may, without prejudice to any other action which may be taken under this Act, re-assess the duty leviable on such goods. (5) Where any re-assessment done under subsection (4) is contrary to the self-assessment done by the importer or exporter and in cases other than those where the importer or exporter, as the case may be, confirms his acceptance of the said re-assessment in writing, the proper officer shall pass a speaking order on the reassessment, within fifteen days from the date of re-assessment of the bill of entry or the shipping bill, as the case may be. (emphasis supplied) 16. It would be seen that in a case where re-assessment has to be done under sub-section (4) of section 17 of the Customs Act, the proper officer is required to pass a speaking order on the re-assessment, but under sub-section (5) if the importer or exporter confirms his acceptance of the re-assessment, a speaking order is not required to be passed. 17. The 2007 Valuation Rules have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by section 14 of the Customs Act. Rule 3 deals with the determination of the method of valuation and it is reproduced below: Rule 3. Determination of the method of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itself does not provide a method for determination of value, it provides a mechanism and procedure for rejection of declared value in cases where there is reasonable doubt that the declared value does not represent the transaction value; where the declared value is rejected, the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially in accordance with rules 4 to 9. (ii) The declared value shall be accepted where the proper officer is satisfied about the truth and accuracy of the declared value after the said enquiry in consultation with the importers. (iii) The proper officer shall have the powers to raise doubts on the truth or accuracy of the declared value based on certain reasons which may include - (a) the significantly higher value at which identical or similar goods imported at or about the same time in comparable quantities in a comparable commercial transaction were assessed; (b) the sale involves an abnormal discount or abnormal reduction from the ordinary competitive price; (c) the sale involves special discounts limited to exclusive agents; (d) the misdeclaration of goods in parameters such as description, quality, quantity, country of origin, year of manufacture or prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proposed enhancement of value by the department under rule 9 of the 2007 Valuation Rules. They also stated that in view of their acceptance of the enhanced value, they did not want any personal hearing to be provided or a speaking order to be passed in the matter. A prayer was, therefore, made to the Assessing Officer to re-determine the value and re-assess the duty in accordance with the value proposed by the department. 22. The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeals for the reason that the value of the imported goods had been enhanced by the Assessing Officer on the basis of a Circular dated 04.08.2016 issued by the Director General of Valuation, which Circular could not override the provisions of the 2007 Valuation Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, in view of the decision of the Tribunal and the Supreme Court in Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading, set aside the enhancement made in the assessment order and accepted the value declared by Century Metal and CMR Nikkei in the 57 Bills of Entry filed by them. 23. It would, therefore, be appropriate to reproduce the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading, as it is this decision on which reliance h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at provision, the transaction value mentioned in the Bills of Entry can be discarded in case it is found that there are any imports of identical goods or similar goods at a higher price at around the same time or if the buyers and sellers are related to each other. In order to invoke such a provision it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to give reasons as to why the transaction value declared in the Bills of Entry was being rejected; to establish that the price is not the sole consideration; and to give the reasons supported by material on the basis of which the Assessing Officer arrives at his own assessable value. ***** 13. It is, therefore, rightly contended by Mr. Dushyant A. Dave, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent that the reason given for setting aside the order that the normal rule was that the assessable value has to be arrived at on the basis of the price which was actually paid, and that was mentioned in the Bills of Entry. The Tribunal has clearly mentioned that this declared price could be rejected only with cogent reasons by undertaking the exercise as to on what basis the Assessing Authority could hold that the paid price was not the sole consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese appeals and dismiss the same. (emphasis supplied) 24. It transpires from a perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading that the importers had not submitted any letters to the Assessing Authority to the effect that the value stated in the Bills of Entry was on the lower side and, therefore, should be rejected and re-determined at the value made known to them by the Assessing Officer on the basis of contemporaneous imports of the goods at about the same time. The Supreme Court noted that the transaction value mentioned in the Bills of Entry can be discarded in a case where it is found that there are imports of identical goods or similar goods at around the same time at a higher price. In order to invoke such a provision the Supreme Court held that it would be incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to give reasons as to why the transaction value declared in the Bills of Entry was being rejected, and to give reasons supported by material on the basis of which the Assessing Officer arrives at the assessable value. 25. In the present case, as noticed above, the importers had made a categorical statement that they were accepting that the value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion (5) of section 17 provides that where any re-assessment done under sub-section (4) is contrary to the self-assessment done by the importer, the proper officer shall pass a speaking order on the re-assessment, except in a case where the importer confirms his acceptance of the said re-assessment in writing. 29. In the present case, as noticed above, the proper officer doubted the truth or accuracy of the value declared by the importers for the reason that contemporaneous data had a significantly higher value. It was open to the importers to require the proper officer to intimate the grounds in writing for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared by them in the Bills of Entry and seek a reasonable opportunity of being heard, but they did not do so. On the other hand, the importers submitted in writing that though they had declared the value of the imported goods in the Bills of Entry, but on being shown contemporaneous data they agreed that the value of the goods should be rejected and re-determined on the basis of the value proposed by the Assessing Officer. The importers also specifically stated that they did not want a personal hearing to be provided to them or a sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or accuracy of the value so declared persists. (d) When the proper officer does not have reasonable doubt, the goods are cleared on the declared value. (e) When the doubt persists, sub-rule (1) to Rule 3 is not applicable and transaction value is determined in terms of Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. (f) The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy of the declared value on certain reasons which could include the grounds specified in clauses (a) to (f) in clause (iii) of the Explanation. (g) The proper officer, on a request made by the importer, has to furnish and intimate to the importer in writing the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to the imported goods. Thus, the proper officer has to record reasons in writing which have to be communicated when requested. (h) The importer has to be given opportunity of hearing before the proper officer finally decides the transactional value in terms of Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16. Proper officer can therefore reject the declared transactional value based on certain reasons to doubt the truth or accuracy of the declared value in which event the proper officer is entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, no necessity for the Assessing Officer to determine the value sequentially in the manner provided for in rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Valuation Rules. 36. In this connection, it would be useful to refer to a decision of this Tribunal in Advanced Scan Support, wherein the Tribunal, after making reference to the decisions of the Tribunal in Vikas Spinners vs. Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow [2001 (128) ELT 143 (Tri.-Del)] and Guardian Plasticote Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata [2008 (223) ELT 605 (Tri.-Kol)], held that as the appellant therein had expressly given consent to the value proposed by the department and stated that it did not want any show cause notice to be issued or personal hearing to be provided, it was not necessary for the department to establish the valuation any further as the consented value became the declared transaction value requiring no further investigation or justification. Paragraph 5 of the decision is reproduced below: 5. We have considered the contentions of both sides. We find that whatever may be the reasons, the appellant expressly gave its consent to the value proposed by Revenue and expressly stated that it did not want any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same was not accepted and loaded to US $ 0.50 per Kg. This loading in the value was done in consultation with Shri Gautam Sinha, the Representative and Special Attorney of the appellants who even signed an affirmation accepting the loaded value of the goods on the back of the Bill of Entry dated 7-5-1999. After loading of the value, the appellants produced the special import licence and paid the duty on the goods accordingly of Rs. 4,22,008/- on 19-5- 1990. Having once accepted the loaded value of the goods and paid duty accordingly thereon without any protest or objection they are legally estopped from taking somersault and to deny the correctness of the same. There is nothing on record to suggest that the loaded value was accepted by them only for the purpose of clearance of the goods and that they reserved their right to challenge the same subsequently. They settled their duty liability once for all and paid the duty amount on the loaded value of the goods. The ratio of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sounds N. Images, (supra) is not at all attracted to the case of the appellants. The benefit of this ratio could be taken by them only if they had contested the loaded v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correctness. The Tribunal also noted that the burden on the department to establish that the declared value is not correct is discharged if the proposed enhanced value is voluntarily accepted by the importer. 41. This decision of the Tribunal in Hanuman Prasad was followed by the Tribunal in M/s. Sukhdev Exports Overseas vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi [2023 (2) TMI 1038 CESTAT New Delhi] and Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (Import General) vs. Namo Alloys Pvt. Ltd. [Customs Appeal No. 60202 of 2020 decided on 29.11.2023]. 42. It would also be pertinent to refer to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in S.S. Overseas vs. Union of India [2022 (382) E.L.T. 26 (All.)]. The facts before the Allahabad High Court were almost similar. The importer had confirmed in writing his acceptance of the re-assessment and, therefore, a speaking order was not passed. The relevant portions of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court are reproduced below: 6. Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1962 ) provides for assessment of duty. Under sub-section (1) of Section 17, an importer entering any imported goods under Section 46 of the Act, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orced to do so as it was facing extreme financial difficulty and because of coercion it was denied just claim by the insurance company. It was also contended that the insurance company threatened Genus Power to accept the amount in full and final settlement failing which the insurance company will not pay any amount. These were the circumstances pointed out by Genus Power to the Supreme Court regarding the compelling circumstances under which it was forced to sign the acceptance letter. 46. These contentions were not accepted by the Supreme Court. It was held that the plea raised was bereft of any details and particulars and cannot be anything but a bald assertion. The Supreme Court pointed that since there was no protest or demur raised around the time or soon after the letter was signed, the documents cannot be said to have been submitted because of any coercion or undue influence. The Supreme Court pointed out in clear terms that a bald plea of coercion is not enough and the party which sets up such a plea must prima facie establish the same by placing material. The relevant portions of the judgment of the Supreme Court are reproduced below: 3. On 11-3-2011 the respondent signed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certain documents including the Claim Form. The Respondent Company also denied the just claim of the Petitioner by their acts of omission and commission and by exercising coercion and undue influence and made the Petitioner Company sign certain documents, including a pre-prepared discharge voucher for the said amount in advance, which the Petitioner Company were forced to do so in the period of extreme financial difficulty which prevailed during the said period. As stated aforesaid, the Petitioner Company was forced to sign several documents including a letter accepting the loss amounting to Rs. 6,09,55,406 and settle the claim of Rs. 5,96,08,179 as against the actual loss amount of Rs. 28,79,08,116 against the interest of the Petitioner company. The said letter and the aforesaid pre-prepared discharge voucher stated that the Petitioner had accepted the claim amount in full and final settlement and thus, forced the Petitioner company to unilateral acceptance the same. The Petitioner company was forced to sign the said document under duress and coercion by the Respondent Company. The Respondent Company further threatened the Petitioner Company to accept the said amount in full and f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent 1, the contractee company was awarded a contract for Site Grading, Construction of Roads, Water Drains and Compound Wall for Aromatic Complex at Mangalore in Mangalore SEZ by the appellant contractor on 17-3-2008. ***** 3. On 21-9-2012, the contractee company submitted a no-dues/no-claim certificate certifying the payment of all the bills and in total settlement of all the claims whatsoever against the contract. Thereafter, on 10-10- 2012, the appellant herein the contractor company made a payment of the final bill of Rs. 20.34 crores to the contractee company. 4. Subsequently, on 24-10-2012, the contractee company withdrew letter dated 21-9-2012 for nodues/no-claim certificate stating that it was a prerequisite condition for release of their long due legitimate payment against the work executed under the contract and the same was furnished by the contractee company under duress and coercion of the appellant contractor. ***** 24. From the materials on record, we find that the contractee-Company had issued the No Dues/No Claim Certificate on 21.09.2012, it had received the full amount of the final bill being Rs. 20.34 crores on 10.10.2012 and after 12 days thereafter, i.e., o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd coercion, the parties pleading it must set forth full particulars and general allegations are insufficient however strong the language in which they are couched. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court is as follows: We turn next to the questions of undue influence and coercion. Now it is to be observed that these have not been separately pleaded. It is true they may overlap in part in some cases but they are separate and separable categories in law and must be separately pleaded. It is also to be observed that no proper particulars have been furnished. Now if there is one rule which is better established than any other, it is that in cases of fraud, undue influence and coercion, the parties pleading it must set forth full particulars and the case can only be decided on the particulars as laid. There can be no departure from them in evidence. General allegations are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any court ought to take notice however strong the language in which they are couched may be, and the same applies to undue influence and coercion. (emphasis supplied) 49. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermine the value under section 14 of the Customs Act and the 2007 Valuation Rules and when the goods have been cleared after payment of differential customs duty and out of charge order, the proper officer, due to non-availability of the imported goods cannot determine the value. This, therefore, appears to be a well thought of method by the importers to get the valuation determined on the amount indicated in the Bills of Entry without any adjudication and without having to substantiate the transaction value indicated by them in the Bills of Entry. 53. It does transpire from the modus operandi adopted by the importers that they had worked out a well thought of plan to clear the goods at the transaction value indicated by them in the Bills of Entry. When the Assessing Officer doubted the value mentioned in the Bills of Entry, they readily agreed to give consent letters not only stating that the value indicated by them in the Bills of Entry should be rejected and determined in accordance with the enhanced value proposed by the Assessing Officer, but also stated that they would not require a show cause notice to be issued or a speaking order to be passed and subsequently, when the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a considerable delay that the Supreme Court observed that it has to be accepted that the customs authorities had compelled and forced the appellant to furnish the letter dated 06.03.2017. The Supreme Court further observed that since reasons have to be communicated in terms of rule 12 of the 2007 Valuation Rules before the proper officer can proceed to make assessment under rules 4 to 9 after rejecting the transaction value, the adjudication order was flawed as it did not give good and cogent reasons in terms of section 14(1) of the Customs Act and rule 12 of the 2007 Valuation Rules for rejecting the transaction value as declared in the Bills of Entry. The Supreme Court also observed that that Valuation Alerts are issued by the Director General of Valuation based on the monitoring of valuation trends of sensitive commodities with a view to take corrective measures, but they should not be construed as interfering with the discretion of the assessing authority who has to pass the order in the given factual matrix. The Supreme Court further observed that such matters have to be examined on case to case basis on the basis of the evidence before the authorities and the material plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27 C/52002/2019 29.09.2018 04.10.2018 28 C/52003/2019 03.10.2018 05.10.2018 29 C/52004/2019 20.09.2018 01.10.2018 30 C/52005/2019 20.09.2018 25.09.2018 31 C/52006/2019 22.09.2018 01.10.2018 32 C/52007/2019 22.09.2018 04.10.2018 33 C/52008/2019 24.09.2018 29.09.2018 34 C/52009/2019 29.09.2018 04.10.2018 35 C/52010/2019 29.09.2018 04.10.2018 36 C/52011/2019 29.09.2018 04.10.2018 37 C/52012/2019 04.10.2018 10.10.2018 38 C/52013/2019 04.10.2018 11.10.2018 39 C/52014/2019 04.10.2018 09.10.2018 40 C/52015/2019 17.10.2018 31.10.2018 41 C/52016/2019 15.10.2018 20.10.2018 42 C/52017/2019 13.10.2018 20.10.2018 43 C/52018/2019 10.10.2018 23.10.2018 44 C/52019/2019 09.10.2018 20.10.2018 45 C/52020/2019 05.10.2018 12.10.2018 46 C/52021/2019 05.10.2018 11.10.2018 47 C/52022/2019 05.10.2018 11.10.2018 48 C/52023/2019 04.10.2018 09.10.2018 49 C/52024/2019 05.11.2018 13.11.2018 50 C/52025/2019 05.11.2018 13.11.2018 51 C/52026/2019 05.11.2018 13.11.2018 52 C/52027/2019 06.11.2018 13.11.2018 53 C/52028/2019 06.11.2018 13.11.2018 54 C/52029/2019 06.11.2018 13.11.2018 55 C/52030/2019 02.11.2018 13.11.2018 56 C/52031/2019 05.11.2018 13.11.2018 57 C/52032/2019 05.11.2018 13.11.2018 58. It is, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Import-Seaport), Chennai [2015 (330) E.L.T. 799 (Tri.-Chennai)] and Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi vs. Nath International [2013 (289) E.L.T. 305 (Tri.-Del.)] on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents merely hold that the department cannot reject the declared value and assess the goods as per the NIDB data. 64. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that merely because the enhancement value was arrived at on the basis of letters submitted by the importers would not mean that the statutory right of appeal available to the importers under section 128 of the Customs Act can be denied. 65. It is true that the right of appeal cannot be curtailed and the importers can certainly file appeals, but the issue that arises for consideration is whether after having themselves rejected the value mentioned in the Bills of Entry and after having also mentioned that the re-determined value under rule 9 of the 2007 Valuation Rules was acceptable to them, can the importers raise this issue in the appeals. It is difficult to accept the contention of learned counsel for respondent that despite having accepted the enhanced value in very categorical ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Central Excise and Customs, Central Goods Service Tax, Jaipur-I). In the two appeals before the Delhi High Court, the order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the Tribunal was assailed. The order dated 01.07.2024 passed by the Delhi High Court in the two appeals is reproduced below: 1. These two appeals impugn orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [ Tribunal ] negativing a challenge raised to the maintainability of the appeals instituted by the Department on the ground of low tax effect. We note that apart from the above the Tribunal is also examining the right of the appellants to have instituted appeals against the orders of assessment which came to be framed pursuant to Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 [ Act ]. 2. While we are aware of identical questions forming part of CUSAA 27/2022, in our considered opinion since the orders impugned herein presently deals only with the maintainability question, there would be no justification to entertain them at this stage, since all rights of the petitioner would stand reserved to assail any order adverse to them if drawn by the Tribunal including on the ground of maintainability. 3. Accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
