TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules against enhanced unit price in customs case on imported Flower Lights & LED Lights</h1> The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in a case concerning the assessment of Bills of Entry for Flower Lights and LED Lights ... Enhancement and rejection of declared value - Flower Lights, LED Lights etc. imported from China - Section 17 (5) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The respondent cleared the goods after paying the duty of enhanced value under protest. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority was required to pass an order under Section 17 (5) of the Act within 15 days - Admittedly, as no speaking order has been passed under Section 17 (5) of the Act, therefore, the enhancement of declared value is not sustainable. There are no infirmity in the impugned order and the same is sustained - The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Issues involved: The issue involves the assessment of Bills of Entry for clearance of goods from China, specifically Flower Lights and LED Lights, where the unit price was enhanced without a proper order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.Summary of Judgment:Issue 1: Enhanced value assessment without proper order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962The respondent filed Bills of Entry for clearance of Flower Lights and LED Lights from China, which were assessed for an enhanced unit price without a valid order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent accepted delivery of the goods after paying duty on the enhanced value under protest due to festival commitments. The Appellant challenged the assessed Bills of Entry before the Commissioner (Appeals), who held that the enhancement of declared value was not sustainable as no detailed order under Section 17(5) was passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Revenue contended that since the respondent accepted the enhanced value at the time of clearance, no order under Section 17(5) was necessary. However, the Tribunal found that as no speaking order was passed under Section 17(5), the enhancement of declared value was not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned order setting aside the enhanced assessed value was sustained, and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.This summary provides a detailed overview of the issues involved in the legal judgment and the Tribunal's decision regarding the assessment of Bills of Entry for imported goods from China.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
