2024 (9) TMI 170 - AT - Customs

Importers cannot challenge enhanced valuation after accepting it in writing, CESTAT rules citing settled legal principle

Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Rajasthan Versus Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. ; CMR Nikkei India Pvt. Ltd.

CESTAT New Delhi held that importers who categorically accepted enhanced valuation of imported goods in written correspondence cannot subsequently ... Enhancement of the value of imported goods by the Assessing Officer - rejection of declared value mentioned in Bills of Entry - whether after having themselves rejected the value mentioned in the Bills of Entry and after having also mentioned that the re-determined value under rule 9 of the 2007 Valuation Rules was acceptable to them, can the importers raise this issue in the appeals? - HELD THAT:- It is difficult to accept the contention of learned counsel for respondent that despite having accepted the enhanced value in very categorical terms in the letters, the importers can still challenge the enhancement of the value and contend that it has not been properly determined under the 2007 Valuation Rules. It is well settled that what is admitted is not required to be proved by the department. This issue has been settled by the Supreme Court in Systems & Components [2004 (2) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that 'Once it is an admitted position by the party itself, that these are parts of a Chilling Plant and the concerned party does not even dispute that they have no independent use there is no need for the Department to prove the same. It is a basic and settled law that what is admitted need not be proved.' The order dated 05.04.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the 57 appeals deserves to be set aside and is set aside. All the 57 appeals filed by the department are, accordingly, allowed and the enhancement in the value of the imported goods by the Assessing Officer is maintained - Appeal of Revenue allowed. Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of the enhancement of the value of imported goods by the Assessing Officer.2. Validity of consent letters submitted by the importers.3. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading.4. Allegations of coercion in obtaining consent letters.5. Requirement of a speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act.6. Admissibility of appeals filed by the importers after the out of charge order.7. Compliance with the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007.8. Monetary threshold for filing appeals by the department.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legitimacy of the enhancement of the value of imported goods by the Assessing Officer:The Assessing Officer doubted the accuracy of the value declared by Century Metal and CMR Nikkei in the Bills of Entry, based on contemporaneous import data showing higher values. Both importers submitted letters accepting the proposed enhanced value and paid the differential duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this enhancement, but the Tribunal found that the importers' acceptance of the enhanced value precluded the need for further validation by the Assessing Officer.2. Validity of consent letters submitted by the importers:The importers submitted letters explicitly stating that they accepted the enhanced value proposed by the Assessing Officer. These letters indicated that the importers had reviewed and understood the contemporaneous import data and agreed to the reassessment without requiring a personal hearing or a speaking order. The Tribunal held that these consent letters were valid and binding, thus the Assessing Officer was not required to undertake further valuation procedures.3. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading:The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading to set aside the enhancement. However, the Tribunal distinguished this case, noting that in Sanjivani, the importers had not submitted consent letters. In the present case, the importers had explicitly accepted the enhanced value, making the Sanjivani decision inapplicable.4. Allegations of coercion in obtaining consent letters:The importers claimed that the consent letters were obtained under coercion. The Tribunal, referencing Supreme Court judgments, held that mere allegations without specific details or evidence are insufficient to establish coercion. The importers' actions, including paying the enhanced duty and clearing the goods without protest, further discredited their claims of coercion.5. Requirement of a speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act:Section 17(5) of the Customs Act mandates a speaking order for reassessment unless the importer accepts the reassessment in writing. Since the importers had accepted the reassessment in writing, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not required to pass a speaking order.6. Admissibility of appeals filed by the importers after the out of charge order:The Tribunal held that the importers, having accepted the enhanced value and cleared the goods, could not later challenge the reassessment. The principle that 'what is admitted need not be proved' was applied, and the appeals were deemed inadmissible.7. Compliance with the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007:The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer complied with Rule 12 of the 2007 Valuation Rules by doubting the declared value based on contemporaneous data and obtaining the importers' acceptance of the enhanced value. The importers' acceptance obviated the need for further valuation under Rules 4 to 9.8. Monetary threshold for filing appeals by the department:The Tribunal rejected the importers' contention that the appeals should be dismissed based on the monetary threshold for filing appeals. The Tribunal's order dated 21.03.2024 had already addressed this issue, and the importers were allowed to raise it again if any adverse order was passed.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and maintained the enhancement of the value of the imported goods by the Assessing Officer. The appeals filed by the department were allowed, and the cross-objections filed by Century Metal and CMR Nikkei were rejected.