Importer's voluntary acceptance of enhanced customs valuation bars challenge despite claims of duress payment

The CESTAT New Delhi dismissed an appeal challenging customs valuation enhancement. The appellant imported jackets from Hong Kong and initially declared a lower value in the Bill of Entry. During assessment, the appellant voluntarily accepted enhanced values for five jacket types in a written statement without requesting a hearing. The Joint Commissioner rejected the declared transaction value and redetermined assessable value based on the appellant's acceptance and contemporaneous e-commerce site data. The tribunal held that once the appellant accepted enhanced valuation, sequential application of valuation rules 4-9 was unnecessary. The appellant's claim of paying duty under duress was rejected as it wasn't raised earlier and lacked merit given voluntary payment without objection.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of declared value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.
2. Re-determination of assessable value under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.
3. Waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing.
4. Acceptance of enhanced value by the appellant.
5. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Summary:

1. Rejection of declared value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007:
The appellant imported jackets and declared their value in the Bill of Entry dated July 22, 2019. The Joint Commissioner rejected this declared value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, citing that the goods were of better quality and had a higher assessable value than declared. This conclusion was based on a comparison with similar goods on e-commerce sites. The appellant waived the show cause notice and personal hearing and accepted the revised value in a statement dated August 23, 2019.

2. Re-determination of assessable value under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007:
The Joint Commissioner re-determined the assessable value under Rule 5 of the 2007 Valuation Rules after the appellant failed to produce the manufacturer's invoice. The re-assessed values were significantly higher than the declared values, leading to the conclusion that the goods were under-valued and liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, a penalty was imposed under Section 112(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. Waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing:
The appellant explicitly waived the issuance of a show cause notice and personal hearing, requesting an early decision. This waiver was confirmed in the appellant's written statement, where they accepted the revised value shown by the Joint Commissioner.

4. Acceptance of enhanced value by the appellant:
The appellant's acceptance of the enhanced value implied that the declared value was automatically rejected. The Tribunal noted that once the appellant accepted the enhanced value, there was no necessity for the assessing officer to determine the value sequentially under Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Valuation Rules.

5. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Joint Commissioner imposed a penalty on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, for knowingly and willingly submitting improper facts and mis-declaring the value of the goods to evade customs duty.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed as the appellant had accepted the enhanced value and waived the procedural requirements, including the show cause notice and personal hearing. The Tribunal upheld the re-determined value and the penalties imposed, finding no merit in the appellant's contentions.

---