2024 (9) TMI 123

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ms (Appeals), Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House, Nhava Sheva for not having considered the merit of the three appeals filed against assessment saddling them with differential duty arising from adoption of US$ 2.83/kg as value of 'knitted polyester fabrics' after rejection of declaration of US$ 1.60/kg, US$ 1.58/kg and US$ 1.60/kg respectively as value in bills of entry no. 5346582/30.11.2011, no. 5606858/29.12.2011 and no. 5905924/03.02.2012 and, instead, dismissing their appeal thus '6. The above comments of the department are self-explanatory and I find that all the grounds made in appeal memorandum are countered suitably. I also find that the appellant had accepted the enhancement of value and also paid the additional duty as asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hose where the importer or the exporter, as the case may be, confirms his acceptance of the said re-assessment in writing, the proper officer shall pass a speaking order within fifteen days from the date of re-assessment of the bill of entry or the shipping bill, as the case may be.' in section 17 of Customs Act, 1962. It is abundantly clear that, except for acceptance in writing, 'speaking order' is the culmination of compliance with section 17(5) of Customs Act, 1962. Prima facie, there is no scope for implied acceptance and the thrust of submission on the part of Learned Authorized Representative, with reference to decisions of the Tribunal, is not acceptable. 3. Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that no confirmation of revis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the crucial question of such admittance having been made in the present dispute is not apparent. It is quite possible that acceptance, as noted in bill of entry, may be construed as sufficing agreement with the revision in value but it appears to us that this conclusion therein, as well as in re Sumridhi Aluminium (P) Ltd, in re Namo Alloys Pvt Ltd and in re Hanuman Prasad & Sons, had, as its basis, conformation of acceptance of assessment and, thereby, holding that right of appeal was not in concatenation with the disputation of revision even though the former has no support without the latter. While, in re Namo Alloys Pvt Ltd in which the issue is much the same as the present one, the acceptance of assessment was held as incontrovertible ....