https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781988 CESTAT allowed the appeals, setting aside the Orders-in-Appeal which had rejected the importer's challenge to enhancement of assessable value. The Tribunal held that letters requesting clearance on enhanced value under protest could not be treated as unconditional acceptance of value enhancement. Since the bills of entry were filed after the 2011 amendments, the proper officer was statutorily required under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act to issue a speaking order communicating reasons for rejecting the declared transaction value, which was not done. Relying on SC and HC precedents, CESTAT held the enhancement and consequent rejection of appeal unsustainable. en-us Wed, 25 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Nov 2025 08:57:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781988 CESTAT allowed the appeals, setting aside the Orders-in-Appeal which had rejected the importer's challenge to enhancement of assessable value. The Tribunal held that letters requesting clearance on enhanced value under protest could not be treated as unconditional acceptance of value enhancement. Since the bills of entry were filed after the 2011 amendments, the proper officer was statutorily required under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act to issue a speaking order communicating reasons for rejecting the declared transaction value, which was not done. Relying on SC and HC precedents, CESTAT held the enhancement and consequent rejection of appeal unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 25 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781988