2022 (7) TMI 1127 - AT - Customs

Appellate Tribunal Remands Customs Case for Reassessment

M/s. Surbhit Impex Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (I), Mumbai

The Appellate Tribunal ruled in a case involving the loading of value on bill of entries without a re-assessment order under Section 17 (5) of the Customs ... Valuation of imported goods - loading of the value on the bill of entries filed by the appellant without issuance of re-assessment order in terms of Section 17 (5) of the Customs Act, 1962 - no speaking order as provided by Section 17 (5) of the Customs Act, 1962 was issued to the appellants - HELD THAT:- Admittedly in this case the value of the goods as declared by the Appellants at the time of filing the Bill of Entry has been enhanced by the assessing officer. However no order under Section 17 (5) of Customs Act, 1962 has been passed by the assessing officer - In terms of the Section 17 (5) of the Custom Act, 1962 as it existed at the material time, it was mandatory for the proper officer to issue a speaking order on the reassessment except in the cases where the importer/ exporter confirms his acceptance of the re assessment in writing. It is the submission of the appellant that they had never accepted the said re-assessment order in writing. Plain reading of the Section 17 (5) show that acceptance of re-assessment made has to be in writing, which means that re- assessment order needs to be accepted positively by the importer and it cannot be derived in an implied 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 - there are no merits in the said findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeal). 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 - 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 same. Appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues involved:- Loading of value on bill of entries without issuance of re-assessment order under Section 17 (5) of the Customs Act, 1962.- Violation of principles of natural justice in decision-making process.- Acceptance of reassessed value by importer without written confirmation.Analysis of the Judgment:Issue 1: Loading of value on bill of entries without issuance of re-assessment order under Section 17 (5) of the Customs Act, 1962:- The Appellate Tribunal considered the case where the value declared by the Appellants on the bill of entries was enhanced by the assessing officer without issuing a speaking order as mandated by Section 17 (5) of the Customs Act, 1962.- The Tribunal noted that the appellant had never accepted the re-assessment order in writing, which is a requirement under the law.- The Commissioner (Appeal) had observed that since the importer had accepted the enhanced value without protest, no further action was required. However, the Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing that written acceptance is mandatory, and without it, a speaking order must be issued.- The Tribunal found the Commissioner's decision to be in violation of the law and ordered a remand back to the Commissioner (Appeal) for reconsideration after providing the appellant with all relevant documents and communications relied upon.Issue 2: Violation of principles of natural justice in decision-making process:- The appellant argued that the decision-making process violated the principles of natural justice as they were not provided with reasons for the enhanced value and were not given an opportunity to respond to certain submissions made by the revenue.- The Tribunal agreed that the appellant's right to natural justice was compromised, as they were not given a fair chance to contest the decision based on the information provided post-decision.- The Tribunal highlighted the importance of providing all relevant information to the appellant before making a decision, ensuring a fair and transparent process.Issue 3: Acceptance of reassessed value by importer without written confirmation:- The Tribunal examined the acceptance of the reassessed value by the importer without written confirmation and reiterated the legal requirement of positive acceptance in writing.- It was noted that the appellant cleared the goods and paid duty on the enhanced value without protest, but this action did not constitute written acceptance as required by law.- The Tribunal emphasized that without explicit written acceptance, the proper officer must issue a speaking order within a specified timeframe, which was not done in this case.- The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeal) for reconsideration was based on the lack of written acceptance and the violation of procedural requirements.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal found that the loading of value on the bill of entries without a proper re-assessment order, the violation of natural justice in decision-making, and the absence of written acceptance of the reassessed value necessitated a remand back to the Commissioner (Appeal) for a fair reconsideration of the case with all relevant documents provided to the appellant.