2007 (12) TMI 37 - AT - Customs

Enhanced value once settled & duty having been paid accordingly without protest importer cannot challenge the same subsequently. - Appellants haven t established that they had lodged any protest & on the contrary their letter dated 21-4-1999 clearly points to acceptance of the enhanced value - noting on the back of the B/E as duty paid under protest was not proved made before the payment of duty & clearance of the goods B/E not countersigned by any customs official refund admissible

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over the declared value of imported goods
2. Claim of assessment based on declared value and refund of extra duty
3. Protest against the duty payment

Analysis:

Issue 1: Dispute over the declared value of imported goods
The Appellants imported a consignment of L.D.P.E. Lupolene Grade Granules and declared a price of US $570 PMT (CIF). Customs Authorities doubted the declared value and proposed US $610 PMT (CIF) based on contemporaneous prices. The Appellants later agreed to accept the proposed value of US $610 PMT CIF Calcutta for assessment of duty. However, they subsequently claimed assessment based on the declared value, leading to the rejection of their claim by the Authorities.

Issue 2: Claim of assessment based on declared value and refund of extra duty
The main argument presented by the Appellants was that they paid the duty under protest. However, the Tribunal noted that the Appellants had clearly accepted the higher value of US $610 in their communication with the Customs Authorities without any mention of protest. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision which stated that once an enhanced value is settled and duty is paid without protest, the importer is estopped from challenging it later. Since the Appellants did not establish lodging any protest and voluntarily accepted the enhanced value, the Tribunal found in favor of the department, dismissing the appeal.

Issue 3: Protest against the duty payment
The learned Advocate for the Appellants cited a noting on the back of the bill of entry stating 'duty paid under protest.' However, it was revealed that this notation was made by the Appellants themselves and lacked evidence of being made before the payment of duty and clearance of goods. The Tribunal emphasized that such a notation without following the required procedure for registering a protest was not sufficient proof of the duty being paid under protest. Additionally, the decision cited by the Advocate did not support the Appellants' claim as it highlighted the importance of contesting the enhanced value at the time of payment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the impugned order to be legal and correct, leading to the dismissal of the Appeal. The decision was pronounced in open court on 3-12-2007.