9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Customs that the value declared was the correct value. It was also submitted that even as per the import documents, such as the import invoice and the letter of credit opened in favour of the beneficiary/foreign supplier, there was no extra remittance and the value declared needs to be accepted as the Transaction value. However, the respondent without formally rejecting the declared values, proceeded to discard the value without any basis. Merely by paying the duty as assessed by the adjudication authority due to compelling reasons like mounting demurrage charges and the delay in clearance cannot be considered as acceptance of the loaded value. Thus, the findings of the adjudication authority that the assessment order passed by the Department is based on the value and classification declared by the importer is factually incorrect. Conclusion - In the absence of any justifiable reason, enhancement of the declared value is not tenable. Appeal allowed. - Hon'ble P. A. Augustian , Member ( Judicial ) And Hon'ble Mr. Pullela Nageswara Rao , Member ( Technical ) Mr. Syed Peeran and Mr. Tushar Sharma , Advocates for the Appellant Mr. K. A. Jathin Authorised Representative for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 2006 (202) ELT 13 SC, CC Vs. Agarwal Industries Ltd. reported in 2011 (272) ELT 641 (SC). 4. The learned counsel further submitted that learned Appellate Authority failed to consider the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Priya Blue Industries, where it is categorically held that whenever an assessee is aggrieved by the assessment made by the assessing authority, the same can be challenged by way of filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Appellant had complied with the said ruling by filing the above appeal before the respondent. 5. The learned counsel further submitted that the issue is squarely covered by catena of decisions of this Tribunal including the following : i. Haripriya traders, Firdouse International Trading Company, Shabeer Enterprises, Mohammed Fariz and Co., PK Traders, Keveeyam Company Supariwala Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Cochin, 2022 (7) TMI 1126 CESTAT BANGALORE ii. M/s. Solaris Chemtech Industries Ltd. (Formerly known as Solaris Chemtech Limited) Vs. C.C.E. S.T. Mangalore 2019 (12) TMI 948-CESTAT BANGLORE iii. CC, Bangalore Vs. CMC Ltd., 2016 (343) E.L.T. 929 (Tri.-Bang.) iv. Suvee Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had been accepted by the appellant and the goods subsequently cleared. The duty was voluntarily paid by the appellant. There was no enhancement of value by the department leading to an increase in the assessed duty. The appellant did not express any dissent in writing at the time of clearance of the goods nor was a speaking order asked for. In terms of Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 this assessment has reached finality and is not open to appeal. I have no cause to interfere in this case in terms of Section 128 of the Customs Act. 10. Further, we find that in the impugned orders in Appeal Nos. 20015/2017, 20137/2017 20368/2017, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held as under : It is seen that the Original Authority has rejected the declared value of the import goods and re-determined their value under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Induction cookers are being imported by various importers through Cochin port such as M/s V Guard Industries and the Revenue has relied on the declared prices of these similar goods . The contention by the appellant that the similar goods relied on by the Revenue vary widely in terms of specifications and therefore their values cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.85 USD and appellant had paid duty, accordingly. 13. In the Appeal No. 22548/2014 for Model Impex Induction Cooker without pot (Omega L3), unit declared price of USD 8.05 was enhanced to USD 12.00. 14. In Appeal No. 22549/2014, Model ONIX Induction Cooker, unit declared price of USD 9.05 was loaded to USD 13.00, for the goods IMPEX Induction Cooker, price of Rs. 8.05 was loaded to 12.00 and for the IMPEX Induction Cooker USD 13.40 was the declared price and same was accepted. 15. As regards Appeal No. 22168/2015 for Model Onix Induction Cooker (OI 337), unit declared price of USD 11.80 was enhanced to USD 13.00, Onix Induction Cooker with pot (OI 446) unit declared price of USD 9.05 was enhanced to USD 13.00 and Impex Induction Cooker without Pot (Omega L3) unit declared price USD 8.05 was enhanced to USD 12.00. 16. In respect of Appeal No. 20015/2017, the learned counsel drew our attention to the following table, where declared values and enhanced values are shown. Model imported Declared value (in USD) Enhanced/Assessed value (in USD) Difference (in USD) Induction Cooker Omega H3A 11.50 12.00 0.50 Induction Cooker Omega H6 12.00 13.10 1.10 Induction Cooker Omega H4 12.58 13.19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the impugned order to reject the transaction value. The appellants stated that they have explained to Customs that the value declared was the correct value. It was also submitted that even as per the import documents, such as the import invoice and the letter of credit opened in favour of the beneficiary/foreign supplier, there was no extra remittance and the value declared needs to be accepted as the Transaction value. However, the respondent without formally rejecting the declared values, proceeded to discard the value without any basis. Merely by paying the duty as assessed by the adjudication authority due to compelling reasons like mounting demurrage charges and the delay in clearance cannot be considered as acceptance of the loaded value. Thus, the findings of the adjudication authority that the assessment order passed by the Department is based on the value and classification declared by the importer is factually incorrect. Further as per the records we did not find any letter or communication in writing by the appellant accepting the enhanced values. 20. We find that in the above facts and circumstances and in the absence of any justifiable reason, enhancement of the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
