2018 (5) TMI 1477 - AT - Customs

Tribunal remands case for fresh assessment due to lack of speaking orders on reassessments

Arihant Tiles& Marbles P Ltd. Versus C.C. -Mundra

The Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh assessment. This decision was based on the failure to ... Valuation - enhancement of value based on contemporaneous imports - no speaking order - Held that: - The basic premise is that since duty was paid on enhanced value after re assessment under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962, there is no question of challenging the same - it is found that the appellants have filed appeals within statutory period against all the impugned bills of entry before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the said assessment orders on the bills of entry - no speaking orders on reassessments made were issued as is the requirement under Section 17 (5) of the Customs Act, 1962. It is the contention of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant that since they did not agree with the assessment order enhancing the value, therefore, the appeals have been filed before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). In the case of Gateway and Commodities Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (1) TMI 1729 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT], Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta has held that it is the statutory responsibility of the assessing officer to issue reassessment order within 15 days of the re-assessment of bills of entry. Hon'ble Court also held that payment of duty by the importer on such re assessment cannot be a ground for non-issuance of the order of reassessment. The impugned matters are remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the issue on merit - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:Appeals against OIAs passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad regarding enhanced value of imported Rough Marble Blocks.Analysis:The appeals involved a common issue of enhanced value of 'Rough Marble Blocks' imported against 43 bills of entry. The appellants contended that the value was enhanced without issuing a notice or a speaking order, leading to the payment of duty to expedite clearance. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals stating that since duty was paid without disputing the assessment, the appeals were not maintainable. The Revenue argued that the enhanced value was accepted by the appellants, making the assessment final. However, the appellants insisted that filing appeals indicated their disagreement with the assessment. The Tribunal noted that no speaking orders on reassessments were issued as required by the Customs Act. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh assessment after giving the appellants an opportunity to present their case.The Tribunal found that the appellants had indeed challenged the assessment orders by filing appeals within the statutory period, indicating their disagreement with the enhanced value. The Commissioner (Appeals) had failed to issue speaking orders on reassessments, as mandated by the Customs Act. Legal precedents highlighted the importance of issuing reassessment orders promptly and not using duty payment as a reason to avoid issuing such orders. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh assessment, allowing the appellants a fair opportunity to defend their position.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh assessment. This decision was based on the failure to issue speaking orders on reassessments, the appellants' right to challenge the enhanced value, and the need for a fair opportunity to present their case. The legal precedents cited emphasized the importance of proper procedures in reassessment cases and the rights of importers to challenge such assessments.