2005 (12) TMI 161 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Enhancement of assessable value on imported consignments without providing reasons to the importer, rejection of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) based on lack of proof of request for reasons for enhancement, legality of clearing goods at assessed duty before challenging assessment in appeal, validity of enhancement based on PLATT price.

Analysis:
The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, NEW DELHI were directed against the enhancement of assessable value on imported consignments without providing reasons to the importer. The original authorities had carried out assessments at enhanced values without giving any reasons for such enhancements. The appellant had submitted letters requesting reasons for enhancement and an order of adjudication, but the requests were not acceded to. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal on the grounds of lack of proof of the request and stated that once an importer clears goods after payment of duty based on the enhanced value, they cannot contest the assessment in appeal. The present appeals were filed challenging this decision of the Commissioner.

The contention raised by the appellant's counsel was that the procedure followed by the authorities was arbitrary and illegal. It was argued that clearing imported goods after paying the assessed duty does not affect the right to challenge the assessment in an appeal. The clearance at assessed duty was done to avoid demurrage and prevent detention of imported goods. The counsel also highlighted that the enhancement of values based on the PLATT price was against established legal principles.

Upon reviewing the record and hearing the learned SDR, the Tribunal found that the clearance of imported goods upon payment of assessed duty does not impact the right to file an appeal challenging the assessment. The Tribunal noted that the enhancement of value did not seem to be on a solid basis, as it was primarily based on prices from a publication (PLATT) which cannot override transaction values for customs assessment purposes. The Tribunal observed that the difference between transaction values and PLATT prices was minimal, indicating that the transaction values were commercial. Additionally, it was pointed out that the comparison made by the authorities did not consider the price on the date of the contract. Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for the enhancement of assessable value in the case. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief for the appellant.

In summary, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the enhancement of assessable value without proper justification and the rejection of the appeal based on procedural grounds were not valid. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of adhering to established legal principles in customs assessments and ensuring that importers have the right to challenge assessments through the appropriate legal channels.