9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 834X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or appellant Shri T. Vishwanathan, Advocate for respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty Revenue has preferred these appeals before this Tribunal against the impugned orders dated 28.09.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai II. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein had filed four Bills of Entry for clearance of imported consignment namely "Cold Rolled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epted by the department and the goods were assessed on the basis of contemporaneous imports. The respondent had paid the assessed duty and cleared the consignment. Similarly in respect of other Bills of Entry Nos.654345 dated 29.08.2009, 652326 dated 28.08.2009 were assessed @ USD 3400 PMT and Bill of Entry No.698599 dated 29.08.2009 was assessed @ USD 3100 PMT. Feeling aggrieved with the assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed in favour of the respondent by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue has assailed the impugned order on the ground that since the importer had paid the enhanced duty without any protest before taking delivery of the goods, there was no need for issuance of any speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Act. It has also been contended that similar/identical goods were imported through J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... speaking order on the reassessment done, which is contrary to the self assessment done by the importer. Admittedly, in this case, the provisions of Section 17(5) have not been complied with by the department and thus, the declared value cannot be enhanced arbitrarily. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders, so far as enhancement of value in the assessed Bills of Entry were set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
