Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 726 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - redetermination of the value of the assessed goods by the assessing authority on the basis of contemporaneous data - Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - It would be seen that though 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 reassessment, but if the importer or exporter confirms his acceptance of the re-assessment, a speaking order is not required to be passed - It is seen from a perusal of section 17(4) of the Customs Act that the proper officer can re-assess the duty leviable, if it is found on verification, examination or testing of the goods or otherwise that the self-assessment was not done correctly. Sub-section (5) of section 17 provides that where any re-assessment done under subsection (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 reassessment in writing. In the present case, 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 and seek a reasonable opportunity of being heard, but they did not do so - It needs to be noted that section 124 of the Customs Act provides for issuance of a show cause notice and personal hearing, and section 17(5) of the Customs Act requires a speaking order to be passed on the Bills of Entry, except in a case where the importers/exporters confirm the acceptance in writing. It is no doubt true that the value of the imported goods shall be the transaction value of such goods when the buyer and the seller of goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration, but this is subject to such conditions as may be specified in the Rules to be made in this behalf. The Valuation Rules have been framed - The very fact that the importers had agreed for enhancement of the declared value in the letters submitted by them to the assessing authority, itself implies that the importers had not accepted the value declared by them in the Bills of Entry. The value declared in the Bills of Entry, therefore, automatically stood rejected. Further, once the importers had accepted the enhanced value, it was really not necessary for the assessing authority to undertake the exercise of determining the value of the declared goods under the provisions of rules 4 to 9 of the Valuation Rules. This is for the reason that it is only when the value of the imported goods cannot be determined under rule 3(1) for the reason that the declared value has been rejected under sub rule 2, that the value of the imported goods is required to be determined by proceeding sequentially through rule 4 to 9. The importers had accepted the enhanced value and there was, therefore, no necessity for the assessing officer to determine the value in the manner provided for in rules 4 to 9 of the Valuation Rules sequentially - the order passed by the Commissioner does not suffer from any illegality - Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Self-Assessment and Re-Assessment of Imported Goods' Value 2. Compliance with Section 124 and Section 17(5) of the Customs Act 3. Rejection of Declared Value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules Issue-Wise Summary: 1. Validity of Self-Assessment and Re-Assessment of Imported Goods' Value: The appellant imported certain products and filed four Bills of Entry based on self-assessment. The assessing authority, using contemporaneous data, assessed the goods at higher values, which the importers accepted in writing. After paying the duty as per the reassessed values, the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), which were dismissed by a common order dated 02.06.2020. 2. Compliance with Section 124 and Section 17(5) of the Customs Act: The appellant declared USD 1.15 per kg for the goods but agreed to enhance the value to USD 1.94 per kg after being confronted with contemporaneous data. The appellant explicitly waived the requirements for a show cause notice and personal hearing under Section 124 and did not request a speaking order under Section 17(5). The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the appellant voluntarily accepted the revised value and waived their rights to a show cause notice and personal hearing, leading to the assessment of the Bills of Entry at the revised value. 3. Rejection of Declared Value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules: Section 14 of the Customs Act and Rule 12 of the Valuation Rules allow the proper officer to reject the declared value if there is reasonable doubt about its truth or accuracy. The proper officer can ask for further information and, if still in doubt, reject the declared value. In this case, the appellant agreed to the enhanced value based on contemporaneous data, thus automatically rejecting the initially declared value. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the appellant's acceptance of the enhanced value made it unnecessary for the assessing authority to determine the value sequentially under rules 4 to 9 of the Valuation Rules. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the order passed by the Commissioner did not suffer from any illegality. The importers' acceptance of the enhanced value and waiver of procedural rights under Sections 124 and 17(5) were pivotal in upholding the reassessment. Consequently, all four appeals were dismissed. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
|