TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1368
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of assessment, value of the goods was enhanced and accordingly, Bills of Entry were assessed. Aggrieved by the enhancement of the values, appeals were filed after clearing the goods on payment of customs duty on enhanced value, the appellate authority rejected the appeals. Aggrieved by said orders, the above 7(seven) appeals were filed by the appellant before this Tribunal. 2. When the appeals came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that; there is no discussion in the impugned order regarding loading of value; as per Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, value of imported goods has to be considered as transaction value; the goods need to be valued as per the value declared in the invoice unless Revenue is in a position to rebut the values declared in the invoice, the goods are to be assessed based on such declared value. The learned counsel relied upon catena of decisions including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Eicher Tractors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T 321 (SC), wherein it is held that it is only when the transaction value is rejected, then under Rule 3(ii) the value shall be det....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ince the goods were cleared by the appellant by paying enhanced value, the appeal is not maintainable. Learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the finding in the impugned orders and submitted that once the appellant had admitted the enhanced value, they have no legal right to challenge the same. Learned AR relied on the Final Order Nos. 50625-50628/2023 dated 04.05.2023 in the matter of M/s. Artex Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Delhi, where it is held as under: "17. The very fact that the importers had agreed for enhancement of the declared value in the letters submitted by them to the assessing authority, itself implies that the importers had not accepted the value declared by them in the Bills of Entry. The value declared in the Bills of Entry, therefore, automatically stood rejected. Further, once the importers had accepted the enhanced value, it was really not necessary for the assessing authority to undertake the exercise of determining the value of the declared goods under the provisions of Rules 4 to 9 of the Valuation Rules. This is for the reason that it is only, when the value of the imported goods cannot be determined under rule 3(1) for the reason that the decla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, I find the rejection of the declared value of the goods imported and their re-determination under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules to be proper and legally sustainable." 11. In Appeal No. 22168/2015, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held as under: "I have carefully examined the facts and circumstances of the case the grounds of appeal submissions made at the time of personal hearing and all the evidence on record. I find that the appellant had approached the proper officer for an assessment order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 but the same was not done by the Original Authority. It cannot be justified before the law. As per Section 17(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, an importer entering any imported goods under section 46 shall self-assess the duty leviable on the goods. The proper officer could re-assess the duty under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. I find that the value was increased as per JNCH letter D.O.F. No. S/V-Valuation Cell/2012/VC-1 dated 16.01.2013 of Chief Commissioner of Customs, which alerted that the minimum price was USD 12/- per pc. I also find that the value was increased by the proper officer after giving the appellant a notice/query....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enhanced values are shown. Model imported Declared value (in USD) Enhanced/Assessed value (in USD) Difference (in USD) Induction Cooker Omega M2 9.60 12.00 2.40 Induction Cooker Omega H4 12.58 13.19 0.61 Induction Cooker Omega L3 7.87 12.00 4.13 Indra-red Cooker- IR 2702 9.70 12.00 2.30 18. As regards Appeal No. 20368/2017, the learned counsel drew our attention to the following table, where declared values and enhanced values are shown. Model imported Declared value (in USD) Enhanced/Assessed value (in USD) Difference (in USD) Induction Cooker Omega M2 9.40 11.40 2.00 Induction Cooker Omega H3A 11.40 11.68 0.28 Induction Cooker Omega L3 7.71 11.73 4.02 Induction Cooker Omega H7 10.84 11.69 0.85 Induction Cooker - OI 340 9.10 11.74 2.64 Induction Cooker Omega 3 7.71 12.00 4.29 Induction Cooker - OI 340 9.10 12.00 2.90 19. We find that the goods covered by all the appeals are almost similar in nature. Further, though the goods were imported under different Bills of Entry, no speaking order specifying the reasons for loading the value was issued in Customs Appeal Nos. C/22547-22549/2014, C/22168/2015, C/20137/2017 and C/20368/2017....