TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant had vide letters dated 19.3.2015 and 26.03.2016 had agreed for the enhanced value only to avoid detention and demurrages on the clearance of the goods and also vide letter dated 31.3.2015, appellant had requested for issuance of speaking order. The impugned order is legally not sustainable and is set aside. The issue stands remanded to the original authority for passing a speaking order on merits after hearing the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Customs Appeal No. 20180 of 2016 Customs Appeal No. 20183 of 2016 - FINAL ORDER No. 20744 - 20745 of 2023 - Dated:- 26-7-2023 - HON BLE MR. P. A. AUGUSTIAN , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Mr. M. Balagopal, Advocate ....F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lvanised Steel Hollow Section from China. Since the department insisted for enhancement of the declared value and to avoid delay, detention and demurrage charges, they accepted the enhanced value and paid the duty accordingly. Appellant also enclosed a copy of the letters dated 19.3.2015 and 26.03.2015 wherein they have stated that they had agreed for the enhanced value only to avoid detention and demurrages on the clearance of the goods. The declared value was Rs.35,202/- and the enhanced value was Rs.42,243/-/ They also stated that the declared price was the price in international market during the relevant period of time. 2.1 Appellant also vide letter dated 31.3.2015 requested for issuance of speaking order which was rejected by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4. The impugned order is not a speaking order as the Commissioner has summarily dismissed stating that no speaking order can be issued in as much as the original authority has not issued a speaking order. The question whether the appellant can ask for a speaking order with cogent reasons for enhancement of the value in spite of the fact that the enhanced value is accepted only for avoiding the demurrage and other charges. 5. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of ITC Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV 2019 (368) E.L.T. 216 (S.C.) held that: 25. Section 17 as amended by Finance Act, 2011 is extracted hereunder: 17. Assessment of duty. - (1) An importer entering any imported goods under Section 46, or a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the re-assessment, within fifteen days from the date of re-assessment of the bill of entry or the shipping bill, as the case may be. (6) Where re-assessment has not been done or a speaking order has not been passed on re-assessment, the proper officer may audit the assessment of duty of the imported goods or export goods at his office or at the premises of the importer or exporter, as may be expedient, in such manner as may be prescribed. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that in cases where an importer has entered any imported goods under Section 46 or an exporter has entered any export goods under Section 50 before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2011 receives the assent of the President, such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apex court in similar facts and circumstances of the present case observed that : 20. ------------ This letter exposits the predicament faced by the appellants as it states that the appellants were in urgent requirement and wanted clearance of the goods. Pertinently, the appellants had earlier written several letters, including communications dated 22nd December, 2016 and 4th March, 2017 requesting for clearance of the imported consignment of aluminium scrap on the declared transaction value pointing out therein that on account of delay in the clearance of the imported consignments, the appellants and its sister concern had been compelled to pay excess duty of over Rs. 25 crores from August 2013 onwards. It is unfortunate and has to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s asked for certain reasons , whether the reasons were not communicated, whether certain reasons can be deciphered from the assessment/valuation order, whether misdescription or false declaration was apparent, etc. 24. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it has to be held that the adjudication order in original is flawed and contrary to law for it does not give cogent and good reason in terms of Section 14(1) and Rule 12 for rejection of the transaction value as declared in the bill of entry. The order in original is not in accordance with Section 14 and Rules 3 and 12 as the mandate of these provisions has been ignored. The Assistant Collector has rejected the transaction value as declared in the bill of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
