TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 1645
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... S. No. Bill of Entry No. and Date 1. 3037283 dated 29.04.2019 2. 3217697 dated 14.05.2019 3. 3217658 dated 14.05.2019 4. 3037326 dated 29.04.2019 5. 3037385 dated 29.04.2019 6. 3146046 dated 08.05.2019 7. 3145884 dated 08.05.2019 8. 3059149 dated 01.05.2019 1.2 On the arrival of goods, respective Bills of Entry, as mentioned in the table above, was filed by the appellant for clearance. However, on being examined the declared value of the goods was objected. The assessing authority enhanced the value of the imported goods for payment of duty on the assessed value. The appellant paid the duty at the enhanced value and got his goods cleared. However, aggrieved with the assessment at higher value than the declared value, he filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who has rejected appellant's contention. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. None has appeared for the appellant. Perusal of file shows that the appeals initially were noticed to have certain defects. The appeals have been adjourned almost 18 number of times. Though there was a minor defect of indexing and pagination, but has not been removed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew the above directions and the conduct of the appellant as observed above, I find no reason to adjourn the matter any further. The arguments on behalf of the department accordingly heard. 6. Learned Departmental Representative has mentioned that the appellant had declared the imported polyester knitted fabric at value USD 1.65 per kg. The Assessing Officer enhanced the value at USD 1.94 kg based upon the contemporary Bills of Entry for the same period and for the same commodity. The said data has already been placed on record by the department. Learned Departmental Representative further impressed upon that the said enhanced value was duly accepted by the appellant vide a letter in writing. The appellant has specifically, in writing, expressed that appellant do not want any personal hearing or speaking matter and thus opted to pay the differential duty. In view thereof and the said data, the enhanced value of the imported goods has been upheld by the impugned Order-in-Appeal. Learned Departmental Representative has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Delhi Vs. M/s. Hanuman Prasad & Sons Reported as 2020 (12) TMI 1092- CESTAT NEW DEL....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be, can be ascertained and thereupon, the importer, exporter or such other person shall produce such document or furnish such information. (4) Where it is found on verification, examination or testing of the goods or otherwise that the self- assessment is not done correctly, the proper officer may, without prejudice to any other action which may be taken under this Act, reassess the duty leviable on such goods. (5) Where any re-assessment done under sub-section (4) is contrary to the self-assessment done by the importer or exporter and in cases other than those where the importer or exporter, as the case may be, confirms his acceptance of the said re-assessment in writing, the proper officer shall pass a speaking order on the re-assessment, within fifteen days from the date of re-assessment of the bill of entry or the shipping bill, as the case may be" 9. It is seen from a perusal of section 17(4) of the Customs Act that the proper officer can re-assess the duty leviable, if it is found on verification, examination or testing of the goods or otherwise that the self-assessment was not done correctly. Sub-section (5) of section 17 provides that where any re-asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....racted and in any case, if the declared value could not be determined under sub-rule (1) of rule 3, it was required to be determined by proceeding sequentially through Rules 4 to 9 of the said Valuation Rules. 12. But in view of Section 17 of the Customs Act, as quoted above, I hold that once the appellant had accepted the enhanced value of the goods imported by appellant, 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. I also held that the value of the imported goods is required to be determined by proceeding sequentially through rule 4 to 9 only when the value of the imported goods cannot be determined under rule 3(1) for the reason that the declared value has been rejected under sub rule 2. 13. I draw my support from the decision of this Tribunal in Advanced Scan Support Technologies vs Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur reported as 2015 (326) ELT 185 (Tri.-Del), wherein the Tribunal, after making reference to the decisions of the Tribunal in Vikas Spinners vs Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow reported as 2001 (128) ELT 143 (Tri.-Del) a....