2015 (10) TMI 271

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ll of Entry No. and Date Customs Duty Involved (Rs.) 1. 137718, dated 06.02.2009 2,43,173.00 2. 137719, dated 06.02.2009 2,87,067.00 3. 137720, dated 06.02.2009 2,75,968.00 4. 137980, dated 11.02.2009 2,75,857.00     The Assessing Officer/Asst. Commissioner of Customs assessed the Bills of Entries by enhancing the value on the basis of DOV alert and the appellant agreed for the same and paid duty at enhanced value without any protest/objection. Subsequently, the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), who taking note of the fact that the enhancement of value was done with the consent of the appellant rejected its appeals. 2. The appellant has contended that (i) the document relied upon by the Com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....contention of the appellant that it was not aware that the CHA had given the consent for enhancement of value because, the duty was paid on the enhanced value without any protest and it cannot be tenably argued that it was done without its knowledge and consent. By consenting to enhancement of value and thereby voluntarily foregoing the need for a Show Cause Notice, the appellant made it unnecessary for Revenue to establish the valuation any further as the consented value in effect becomes the declared transaction value requiring no further investigation or justification. To allow the appellant to contest the consented value is to put Revenue in an impossible situation as the goods are no longer available for inspection and Revenue rightly ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ving been consented, the onus will be on the appellant to establish that the valuation as per his consent suffered from fatal infirmity and such onus has not been discharged. Further, valuation of such goods requires their physical inspection and so re-assessment of value in the absence of goods will not be possible. The case of CC, New Delhi Vs. DM International (supra) cited by the appellant is not relevant here as in that case there was no evidence that the assessee had consented to enhancement of value. 5. We find that the CESTAT s judgement in the case of Vikas Spinners Vs. CC, Lucknow [2001 (128) 143 (TRI Del],CESTAT, dealing with a similar situation, held as under:- "7.In our view in? the present appeal, the question of loading of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d in the presence of their Representative/Special Attorney and paid the duty thereon accordingly."(emphasis added) Similarly, in the case of Guardian Plasticote Ltd. Vs. CC (Port), Kolkotta [2008 (223) ELT 605 (Tri. Kol.)] CESTAT has held as under:- "4. The learned Advocate also cites the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Vikas Spinners v. C.C., Lucknow - 2001 (128) E.L.T. 143 (Tri.-Del.) in support of his arguments. We find that the said decision clearly holds that enhanced value once settled and duty having been paid accordingly without protest, importer is estopped from challenging the same subsequently. It also holds that enhanced value uncontested and voluntarily accepted, and accordingly payment of duty made discharges th....