AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1456
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner (Appeals) holding that the Appellant accepted the enhancement of value in writing at the time of clearance of the consignments in question? 2. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant contended that the Appellant is a regular Importer of different kind of Fabrics and have imported 80 consignments of fabrics from China during the period 01.07.2019 to 18.09.2019 at ICD, Dadri against negotiated price. It has further been contended that the Appellant had self-assessed the duty correctly as per the respective Invoices. However, no 'Out of Charge Orders' were passed. The Appellant made written requests to the Proper Officer to clear the consignments provisionally paying duty on the enhanced value under protest in Order to avoid delay in clearance of consignments. According to the Appellant, no cognizance was taken by the Proper Officer despite several written requests made for clearance of consignment on enhanced value under protest. Finally, the Appellant was coerced to submit letters of consent agreeing to assessment/valuation by the Customs Authorities. The Appellant further contended that the Customs Authorities without observing the mandate of Section 14 of the Cust....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he importer is mandatory. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of by passing and circumventing the statutory mandate as un-acceptable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the formation of belief and recording of reasons as to reasonable doubt as communication of the reasons when required is the only way and manner in which the Proper Officer in terms of Rule 12 can proceed to make assessment under Rule 4 to 9 after rejecting the transaction value as declared. The above requirement has been made mandatory by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by invoking the doctrine of prospective application. The Ld. Advocate submitted that in the present case, all bills of entry are dated post 17.05.2019 and therefore, the proper officer was duty bound to communicate the reasons for rejection of the transaction value in writing as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. The Ld. Advocate also submitted that similar letters of acceptance were submitted by the importers in the case of Hanuman Prasad & ors. and in the Appeals filed by them, the LD. Commissioner (Appeal) set aside the enhancement of value merely on the basis of letter of acceptance. The Department filed Appeals agains....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s as well. 9. The Ld. Advocate also relied on the following judgements:- I. M/s Century Metal Recycling Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Faridabad. Customs Appeal No.61303 of 2019 decided vide Final Order No.60266-60349/2025 dated 27.02.2025 by CESTAT Bench at Chandigarh. II. Commissioner of Customs, Patparganj Vs. M/s Artex Textile Private Limited-Customs Appeal Nos.51414,52809 and 52810 to 52864 of 2019 decided vide Final Order No.50769-50825/2020 dated 14.09.2020 2025 by CESTAT Bench at New Delhi. 10. The Ld. Departmental Authorized Representative reiterated the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) and has drawn our attention to the acceptance letter submitted by the Appellant agreeing to enhancement of value in writing. The Ld. Departmental Authorized Representative submitted that the Appellant had accepted the enhancement of value in writing stating that they have gone through the details narrated by the concerned Officer including the grounds of rejection of declared value and understood the details of contemporaneous import of similar/identical goods and that they fully agree with the enhancement of value and that they do not want show cause notice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Department filed parawise comments and the acceptance letters regarding enhancement of assessable value by the Appellant. However, we find that none of the letters written by the Appellant seeking clearance of the consignments either provisionally or finally on payment of duty on enhanced assessable value under protest have been referred too. We have seen the letters written by the Appellant requesting the clearance of consignments either provisionally or finally on payment of duty on enhanced value under protest which clearly proved that it was not the case of acceptance of enhancement of value simplicitor. 14. We find that the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) merely proceeded on the ground that the Appellant had accepted the enhancement of value under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore, there was no requirement of issuance of Speaking Order. The Commissioner (Appeals) referred to the judgment of Century Metal Recycling (supra) for rejecting the Appeal, more specifically relying on Para 26 to hold that there was no any general or omnibus direction has been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the affect that the transaction value declared in the bills ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2019 to 18.09.2019 and therefore, the Proper Officer was duty bound to communicate the reasons for rejection of the transaction value in writing as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We find that in the Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. (supra) facts were also similar to the present case in as much as in that case also requests for provisional assessment by the importer was ignored and the importer was forced to submit letter of acceptance. We further find that although the letter of acceptance states that the ground for rejection of the declared value has been narrated to the Appellant and that details of contemporaneous import of similar and identical goods have been shown to them and on the basis of which, the Appellant accepted that their value were significantly lower than the value at which identical/similar goods imported at or about the same time in comparable commercial transactions were assessed at other ports of the country, however, no such details of alleged contemporaneous import data have been mentioned. 16. We further find that the issue as to whether the Department can enhance the value relying on NIDB and on the basis of the acceptance letter and once ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ail the reassessment but to impugn it in further proceedings in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act. 85. In our considered opinion, the perceived concession made in respect of the opinion harboured by the proper officer cannot possibly be interpreted or construed as detracting from or depriving the importer of the right to question the decision of the proper officer in accordance with law. The right to question the correctness of the decision of the proper officer, be it with respect to the formation of opinion or even on merits, is one which is protected by statute. The question, which as a sequitur, arises is whether that right itself can be said to have been abandoned." 17. The Ld. Advocate has further drawn our attention to the finding of the Hon'ble High Court on the issue as to whether the declared value can be rejected merely on the basis of NIDB data. The Hon'ble High Court has held as under:- "104. It becomes apparent from a reading of these decisions collectively that the Tribunal has consistently found that a valuation addition based solely on NIDB data would wholly unwarranted and that any such reassessment would have to be shored by indep....