9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant imported a consignment of Bucket Tooth from China and filed Bill of Entry dated 31.01.2019 declaring its transaction value of US$ 0.70 per kg for some goods and US$ 0.665 per kg for certain other goods. The Assessing Officer re-assessed the Bill of Entry after loading and enhancing the value to US$ 1 per kg. The appellant paid customs duty on the enhanced value and cleared the consignment. The appellant had not accepted the re-assessment in writing and, therefore, as per section 17 (5) of the Customs Act, 1962 the Act, the assessing Officer was required to issue a speaking order within 15 days and he did not do so. 3. Aggrieved by the Bill of Entry, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi who, by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id case law is not applicable in this case. It was their acceptance of the enhanced value that formed the basis for re-determination of the value. The decision relied upon by the appellant to support the contention sought to be raised are, therefore, of no benefit to them. Thus, I am of the considered view that in view of the facts of the case, the challenge to the enhanced value does not sustain. My above view finds consonance with the decision of Hon'ble CESTAT, Principal Bench New Delhi in Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s Hanuman Prasad & Sons[2021-TIOL-30-CESTAT-DEL.]. Thus, the appeal is devoid of merits and enhanced value is liable to be accepted for the said Bill of Entry". 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. The Assessing Officer committed a grave error in not issuing the speaking order because there is nothing on record to show that the appellant had accepted the re-assessment in writing. The reliance placed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the order of this Tribunal in case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Hanuman Prasad & Sons 2021-TIOL-30-CESTAT-DEL is highly mis-placed. In that case, the assessee had accepted the re-assessment in writing and, therefore, no speaking order was issued. We had, therefore, held in that case that the assessing Officer was correct in not issuing a speaking order. 7. Even on merits, the Commissioner (Appeals) recorded in the impugned order that the Assessing Officer had "loaded the value". Neither section 14 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
