2024 (4) TMI 636 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Sends Case Back to Division Bench to Decide on Appellant's Consent for Enhanced Customs Duty Value.

The Tribunal directed the matter back to the Division Bench to resolve the core issue of whether the appellant consented to the enhanced value for customs ... Valuation of imported goods - aluminium scrap - enhancement of value - Fulfilment of requirements of Section 14 of the Customs Act or not - scope of the Section 17 (5) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Primary dispute regarding the consent of the appellant - mandatory to pass an speaking order within prescribed period by the concerned authorities in case of any changes made to self-assessment made by the importer while filing the bill of entry - HELD THAT:- When there is a serious dispute as to whether the appellant had given consent in writing to the reassessed value or not, this issue has to be first decided by the Division Bench because it is only in such circumstances that the decision of the Tribunal in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS DELHI VERSUS M/S HANUMAN PRASAD & SONS [2020 (12) TMI 1092 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] would apply. The matter is, therefore, sent back to the Division Bench so that a decision on this core issue is taken because only then reliance can be placed by the revenue on the decision of the Tribunal in Hanuman Prasad. Issues involved:The judgment involves three main issues referred to a Larger Bench of the Tribunal:1. Whether the enhanced value accepted for early clearance is equivalent to the declared value on the Bill of Entry.2. Whether the acceptance of enhanced value binds the importer even if it does not meet the requirements of Section 14 of the Customs Act.3. The scope of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, regarding passing a speaking order within a prescribed period in case of changes to self-assessment made by the importer.Issue 1 - Enhanced Value Equivalence:The Division Bench noted that the appellant declared the transaction value as the assessable value for customs duty purposes, but the Revenue enhanced the value with the appellant's consent. The key consideration was whether Customs authorities were correct in enhancing the self-assessed value without assigning a reason for the enhancement.Issue 2 - Binding Nature of Enhanced Value:A Miscellaneous Application was filed by the appellant stating that they had never given consent for enhancing the value, either in writing or orally. The appellant requested the reference to the Larger Bench to be withdrawn and the matter to be decided by the Division Bench on merits. The Division Bench rejected this application, citing previous decisions and observations regarding the appellant's alleged agreement to the reassessed value.Issue 3 - Scope of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act:The appellant strongly argued that the reference to the Larger Bench was unnecessary as they had not consented to the reassessed value. The department's representative contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in relying on a previous Tribunal decision as the appellant had allegedly given written consent to the enhanced value. However, due to the serious dispute regarding the appellant's consent, the matter was sent back to the Division Bench for a decision on this core issue before relying on the previous Tribunal decision.In conclusion, the judgment directed the matter back to the Division Bench for a decision on the core issue of the appellant's alleged consent to the enhanced value before proceeding with the appeals. The Larger Bench was not required to answer the reference until the issue of consent was resolved by the Division Bench.