Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1676 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - enhancement of declared value - bar under the provisions of Section 17 of Customs Act from filing an appeal against the enhancement - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner (Appeals) is right in holding that the there is no bar in filing appeal against the assessment order even in case were the enhanced value has been accepted by the importer. Further it is also found that in this case the appellant has clearly stated that they are not accepting the enhanced value as per NIDB price but in order to avoid demurrage and detention charge and also blocking of the capital, with a specific request to issue the assessment order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act. This averment indicates that the respondent had the clear intention to file appeal against the order of enhancement of the price which was agreed by him. Therefore, it cannot be held that having agreed to the proposed enhancement, the respondent is barred from filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Regarding the claim of Revenue that the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken additional evidence from the respondent contrary to the provisions of Rule 5 of the Customs Appeal Rules, 1982. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not taken any new evidence but only entertained some new case laws in support of their case, which cannot be considered as production of additional evidence on part of the respondent. The right to appeal is a statutory right under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 and cannot be curtailed by relying on the case of M/S. ADVANCED SCAN SUPPORT TECHNOLOGIES VERSUS C.C., JODHPUR [2015 (11) TMI 31 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] in the case wherein there was no contest by the appellant. It is settled law that the that the value cannot be enhanced on the basis of NIDB price alone which has rightly been relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The Department has not produced any evidence of contemporaneous import but for relying on the NIDB price. NIDB price itself cannot be sufficient to reject the transaction value. But the Department was required to give the evidence of higher contemporaneous value based on the cogent evidence by supply of comparable invoice in terms of the Customs Valuation Rules which has obviously been not followed by the Assessing officer. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|