TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 90
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2025 C/60123/2025 C/60124/2025 C/60125/2025 C/60126/2025 C/60127/2025 C/60128/2025 C/60129/2025 C/60130/2025 C/60131/2025 C/60132/2025 C/60133/2025 C/60134/2025 C/60135/2025 C/60136/2025 C/60137/2025 C/60138/2025 C/60139/2025 C/60140/2025 C/60141/2025 C/60142/2025 C/60143/2025 C/60144/2025 C/60145/2025 C/60146/2025 C/60147/2025 C/60148/2025 C/60149/2025 HON'BLE Mr. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And HON'BLE Mr. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Anurag Kumar and Shri Goverdhan Dass Bansal, Authorized Representatives for the Appellant None for the Respondent ORDER S. S. GARG : All these 93 appeals are filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 03.09.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has disposed of the appeals filed by the importer/assessee/respondent namely M/s Vardhman Sales Agency in respect of the assessment of 93 Bills of Entry. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the importer/assessee/respondent M/s Vardhman Sales Agency had imported impugned goods vide 93 Bills of Entry at ICD Piyala, Faridabad, Haryana by declaring the goods as metal scrap and self assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y paid the duty without asking for any speaking order, show cause notice and personal hearing. In support of his submission, the learned Authorized Representative relies on the decision of Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Patparganj vs. Hanuman Prasad & Sons and Niraj Silk Mills - Final Order No. 51584-61619 dated 20.10.2020, wherein the Tribunal held that valuation once accepted in writing by the assessee/importer as per Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 shall be the transaction value for the purpose of levy of customs duty. While passing the said order, the Principal Bench of the Tribunal distinguished various case-laws submitted by the assessee including the decisions of the Tribunal in cases of Maruti Fabric Impex, Artex Textile, Hanuman Prasad, Uniexcel Polychem etc. and judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Eicher Tractor, Century Metal etc. 5. We have gone through the impugned order and perused the material on record. We find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the submission of the importer/assessee and relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Court as well as the Tribunal o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2019 (367) ELT 3 (SC)]. In the said decision, the Apex Court has held as under:- "20. We would ex facie for the reasons recorded below reject the contention of the respondents predicated on the letter of appellants dated 6th March, 2017 that the appellants did not seek provisional assessment of the bill of entry and had accepted and paid duty on the valuation done by the customs authorities. This letter exposits the predicament faced by the appellants as it states that the appellants were in urgent requirement and wanted clearance of the goods. Pertinently the appellants had earlier written several letters, including communications dated 22nd December 2016 and 4th March, 2017 requesting for clearance of the imported consignment of aluminium scrap on the declared transaction value pointing out therein that on account of delay in the clearance of the imported consignments, the appellants and its sister concern had been compelled to pay excess duty of over Rs. 25 crores from August 2013 onwards. It is unfortunate and has to be accepted that the respondent authorities had compelled and forced the appellant to furnish the letter dated 6th March, 2017 thereby waiving of its figh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....consideration of the submissions made by the parties. The order made by the proper officer on the bills of entry in changing the classification arid value enhancement is an order of re-assessment attracting the provisions of subsection (5) of Section 17 of the Act as urged by the appellant which also appears to be the case from the affidavit filed by the Revenue. Hence, the conclusion has to be that the proper officer was required to pass a speaking order on the re-assessment within 15 days of the re-assessment of the bills of entry. No speaking order was passed. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation to set aside the re-assessment. In view of the aforesaid, there is no scope for a contrary finding. The writ petition thus succeeds to that extent." 5.3.9 There are CBEC instructions on the matter advising the assessing officers to pass a speaking order on the reassessment within 15 days from the date of re-assessment of the Bill of Entry. An importer has an inalienable right to know the reasons for loading of value. Omission to issue speaking orders in matter of re-assessment may not prejudicially affect the right of the importer to appeal as such, but nevertheless depr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... we proceed to analyse Section 17 of the Act and its application to the appeals before us, it would be pertinent to preface the discussion by acknowledging the statutory position as it exists. An entity intending to import goods is firstly required to self-assess the duty which would be leviable. This obliges the importer to comply with the prescriptions set out in Section 46 of the Act. As that provision stands in its present avatar, the importer of any goods is required to electronically present on the customs automated system, the BoE for the consideration of the proper officer. The BoE is to include all particulars required in terms of the provisions made in the Act and corresponding rules. In addition to the presentation of a BoE, the importer is also statutorily obliged to submit a declaration as to the truthfulness of the contents of such BoE and in support thereof produce before the proper officer the invoice and other documents relating to the imported goods as may be prescribed. In terms of sub-section (4A) of Section 46, the importer who presents a BoE is to ensure that the said document is accurate and complete in respect of the information disclosed therein, the authen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e statutory obligations flowing from Rule 12 in this regard were reemphasized by the Supreme Court in that decision when their Lordships observed that the same would constitute the only manner in which the proper officer could proceed to make an assessment under Rules 4 to 9. The interplay between Sections 14 and 17, and the 2007 Rules was lucidly explained by the Supreme Court in Century Metal Recycling and where the Supreme Court was faced with a somewhat similar situation of an appellant who alleged that they had been coerced and intimidated into submitting a letter of consent conceding to the assessment and valuation exercise undertaken by the customs authorities compelled by the delay being caused in the clearance of imported articles and the continued levy of demurrage, warehousing charges and other liabilities. After noticing the language in which Rule 12 stood couched, the Supreme Court in Century Metal Recycling observed that while the expression "reason to doubt" may not be akin to a "reason to believe" or a subjective satisfaction being arrived at, it would clearly have to be reasonable and thus the doubt formed would have to be informed by a degree of objectivity. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecision, the different Benches of the CESTAT have consistently taken the position that letters of consent of the like submitted by the appellants in this batch cannot be viewed as a complete or abject surrender of the right to assail or question a reassessment. However, the host of past precedents rendered on this aspect have come to be overlooked and ignored by the CESTAT which has merely proceeded to toe the line taken in the Advanced Scan Support and Vikas Spinners. We have already taken note of the distinguishing features which inform the aforementioned two decisions. 98. Therefore, the proper officer could not be said to have been relieved of its obligation to pass a speaking order in terms of Section 17(5). The process of rejecting the declared value and reassessing the transaction value is statutorily required to be preceded by the proper officer having drawn an opinion of why the declared value was not liable to be accepted before consequently proceeding to reassess the value. While the said reassessment may not be framed in elaborate terms, it would necessarily have to be reflective of the reasons which weighed upon the respondent to form the opinion that the decl....