9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order in terms of Section 17 (5) of the Customs Act, 1962 2.1 Appellant filed three bills of entry for the clearance of imported goods as detailed in table below: Sr No Bill Of Entry & Date Nature Of Goods Value declared per Kg Value assessed per Kg 1 2 3 4 5 1 7961165/17.09.2012 Knitted fabrics US$ 2.50 US$ 4.6 2. 8629828/30.11.2012 Polyester Knitted fabrics US$ 2.7 US$ 4.7 3. 8470497/12.11.2012 PVC coated fabrics, Width 58" US$ 0.32 US$ 0.65 2.2 These Bill of Entries were assessed by the proper officer after loading the declared value (as indicated in column 4) to the value as 22.3 No speaking order as provided by Section 17 (5) of the Customs Act, 1962 was issued to the appellants. 2.3 App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f filing the Bill of Entry has been enhanced by the assessing officer. However no order under Section 17 (5) of Customs Act, 1962 (reproduced below) has been passed by the assessing officer: "(5) Where any re-assessment done under sub-section (4) is contrary to the self-assessment done by the importer or exporter regarding valuation of goods, classification, exemption or concessions of duty availed consequent to any notification issued therefore under this Act and in cases other than those where the importer or exporter, as the case may be, confirms his acceptance of the said re- assessment in writing, the proper officer shall pass a speaking order on the re-assessment, within fifteen days from the date of re-assessment of the bill of ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mplied manner that re- assessment order has been accepted. In absence of the written acceptance by the importer/ exporter, this section mandatorily provides that proper officer has to issue the speaking order for the re-assessment done within fifteen days of such re- assessment. Hence we do not find any merits in the said findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeal) 4.3 Commissioner (Appeal) has in the impugned order para 4 onwards recorded as follows: 4. Shri Ashwini K. Prabhakar, Advocate, appeared the hearing on behalf of the appellants on 15.01.2013 8 12.02.2013. The Department had submitted Britten submissions vide letters in F. No. S/26 -MISC-082 & 83/2013 (III) dated 29.01.2013 & 30.01.2013 enclosing the print outs of the contem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cept country of origin, are not available in-NIDB, the value of identical imported goods cannot be compared. Hence, the transaction value of the imported goods could not be determined under the provisions of Rule 4 of the Custom's Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2017 D) The NIDB data of the contemporary import of identical/ similar goods (viscose knitted fabric) was retrieved and examined which revealed that the value of such viscose knitted fabrics varied in the price range from Rs. 261/- per kg to Rs. 274/- per kg. The respondents have submitted that similar goods were being assessed at similar value on the basis of the contemporaneous data. To further their stand the respondents, also, have cited the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant/ authorized representative of the appellant. The duty on enhanced value was paid without protest. This shows acceptance of the reassessed value." 4.4 Appellants after receiving the impugned order, wrote a letter to the Commissioner (Appeal) dated 27.06.2013 received in the Office of Commissioner (Appeal) on 27.06.2013 and placed in the Appeal Paper Book at page 47 stating as follows: "Sub: Order in Appeal No 316, 317 & 318/MCH/DC/Gr-I/2013 dt 20.5.2013 and request for furnishing copies of Documents filed by the department-reg Ref: S/49-535,536 & 537/Cus/Mum-I/2012/NCH 1. Kindly refer to the above Order in Appeal No 316, 317 & 318/MCH/DC/Gr-I/2013 dt 20.5.2013 wherein appeal filed by us was dismissed on the ground that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... please find enclosed copies of B/E No 7819759 dt 31.08.2012 along with invoice print. The letter requested by you are not in public domain." 4.6 From the facts as stated above the documents relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeal) were never made available to appellant for replying to the same either by Commissioner (Appeal) or the assessing officer. Thus the impugned order has been passed contrary to the settled principles of natural justice and has no legs to stand on. 4.7 In our view the matter needs to be remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeal) for reconsideration of the entire issue after making available to the appellants all the documents and communications that revenue wishes to rely upon and hearing the appellants on the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
